I think its rather unfair to complain about the lack of people making an appearance to what is effectively a last minute announcement that you plan on holding a testing session, you gave something like 4 hours notice for something you consider as being important and yet the fact that its taking place is either an extremely late announcement or a last minute decision to do one because it doesnt look like it was planned in advance.
Proper advanced warning would be a big help, and almost certainly the best way of making these sessions more successful must surely be by contacting the people who wish to take part, if your doing a GT2 test session then contact those people and let them know, leaving a message ~4hrs beforehand and complaining about lack of interest is quite insulting IMO, 4 DAYS and hardly anyone bothers i can understand, but if theres no proper notice then theres probably not going to be proper numbers.
As the saying goes, help us help you!!
Szabo:
I got what you meant, but implying any 'forcing' of people into GT2 touches on nerves it seems, i guess it is inaccurate but i didnt see anything particularly wrong in your wording but i suppose they have to clarify for others as much as anything that any moving would be of the teams choice, not forced upon them.
I *think* the last announced number of GT2 cars was 8, but the details of those ~8 werent made public for some reason, personally i dont think any of the team specifics (ie car) should have been made public until the final teams were announced, but i dont know why the final application list wasnt made public if only for the same reason it was made public to begin with (so everyone knew their app had been received).
Proper advanced warning would be a big help, and almost certainly the best way of making these sessions more successful must surely be by contacting the people who wish to take part, if your doing a GT2 test session then contact those people and let them know, leaving a message ~4hrs beforehand and complaining about lack of interest is quite insulting IMO, 4 DAYS and hardly anyone bothers i can understand, but if theres no proper notice then theres probably not going to be proper numbers.
As the saying goes, help us help you!!
Szabo:
I got what you meant, but implying any 'forcing' of people into GT2 touches on nerves it seems, i guess it is inaccurate but i didnt see anything particularly wrong in your wording but i suppose they have to clarify for others as much as anything that any moving would be of the teams choice, not forced upon them.
I *think* the last announced number of GT2 cars was 8, but the details of those ~8 werent made public for some reason, personally i dont think any of the team specifics (ie car) should have been made public until the final teams were announced, but i dont know why the final application list wasnt made public if only for the same reason it was made public to begin with (so everyone knew their app had been received).
Phil, wouldnt it be fairer to first offer GT2 places to 2-3 of the rejected applicants who are currently waiting to hear their fate, its not forcing them as such just saying unfortunately we've had to reject the application however you can either go to the top of the shortlist/waiting list for a GT1 drive if anyone drops out, but we'd like to offer you the chance to drive in the GT2 class if this interests you.
Allowing someone who's submitting an application after the deadline to queue jump seems a little unfair, unless their application wouldnt be accepted until you've allowed the GT1 'rejects' first option on any available spaces.
only my opinion, but it seems a little unfair on those who'd happily drop to GT2 but really have their heart set on GT1, but i dont know your intentions so maybe you already plan to do that, if not then maybe its worth considering?
Allowing someone who's submitting an application after the deadline to queue jump seems a little unfair, unless their application wouldnt be accepted until you've allowed the GT1 'rejects' first option on any available spaces.
only my opinion, but it seems a little unfair on those who'd happily drop to GT2 but really have their heart set on GT1, but i dont know your intentions so maybe you already plan to do that, if not then maybe its worth considering?
Actually, on the subject of no chit-chat during grid ordering, what i'd find most helpful from an admin's point of view is if people could look where they've qualified, and know the names of the 2 drivers ahead of them, i'd say maybe 20-25% of the people are helpful and add themselves before i've had chance to spot their name on the list to tell them to join, and if a couple more people knew when their name would be coming up it would certainly speed things up as its a really frustraiting and dull part that could easily be speeded up with a little help from the drivers. I know everyone has other things going through their mind at the time, but it'd certainly help if people we're able to do this.
I'm booked in for an eye transplant on the Friday before the race, i say Friday as it gives me the chance to use 'i was still a bit drugged up' as an excuse if anything else goes wrong
I'm booked in for an eye transplant on the Friday before the race, i say Friday as it gives me the chance to use 'i was still a bit drugged up' as an excuse if anything else goes wrong
im pretty sure the plan when the numbers came through was to run with FWD GTRs but when it became glaringly obvious they werent going to be too compatable they were dropped, and the multi-class vote was combined as it had been said from the beginning.
What i dont get is that multiclass racing isnt something new, and funnily enough daddy GTRs and baby GTRs in the same server is something LFS-GT ran for a whole season, so surely the differences between them would have been obvious there?
25% like westlife
33.33% like steps
41.67% like bon jovi
proof that everyone has crap taste in music?
(for the record im not using the 3rd option like most, bon jovi SUCK, in near-equal measures to the other 2!)
What i dont get is that multiclass racing isnt something new, and funnily enough daddy GTRs and baby GTRs in the same server is something LFS-GT ran for a whole season, so surely the differences between them would have been obvious there?
25% like westlife
33.33% like steps
41.67% like bon jovi
proof that everyone has crap taste in music?
(for the record im not using the 3rd option like most, bon jovi SUCK, in near-equal measures to the other 2!)
I dont like the idea of saying to teams that despite there being room for you in the server, that if you want to participate then it has to be in GT2 despite you wanting to be in the GT1 class, but short of scrapping the GT2 class completely i guess there isnt too much that can be done about this. Its possible that some of the GT1 applicants will be refused, just because there is room doesnt mean they automatically qualify on that basis, so maybe some will be politely requested to rethink their application, but if all teams are perfectly capable in GT1 maybe some forced reshuffling would need to be done to keep the multiple classes entertaining and worthwhile.
Its unfortunate that the numbers havent been as anticipated, but maybe the majority of the votes could have come from people liking the idea but in reality wouldnt actually be participating in it, so effectively distorting the numbers. Thinking its a great idea AND being willing to give up a GT1 place to join in is a different matter all together.
I would have thought the GT2 class could be used in a similar manner to what LFSGT acheived, have it as a stepping stone for new teams, whether they feel they're ready or otherwise, if the experience isnt there then unless there are special circumstances then the GT2 class should be the first step of the actual MoE ladder, just as LFSGT has been a proving ground in the past (possibly still will be?).
Its unfortunate that the numbers havent been as anticipated, but maybe the majority of the votes could have come from people liking the idea but in reality wouldnt actually be participating in it, so effectively distorting the numbers. Thinking its a great idea AND being willing to give up a GT1 place to join in is a different matter all together.
I would have thought the GT2 class could be used in a similar manner to what LFSGT acheived, have it as a stepping stone for new teams, whether they feel they're ready or otherwise, if the experience isnt there then unless there are special circumstances then the GT2 class should be the first step of the actual MoE ladder, just as LFSGT has been a proving ground in the past (possibly still will be?).
The whole [KR] team was pretty 'impressive' the whole day, thankfully NoFear did move over when the lead cars were coming behind him, i was pretty sure that re-joining the track from the garage for whatever reason wasnt allowed, and double checked this was the case with arrow and while i'd agree its harsh and unfair on someone who's spent hours or days practicing, the fact of the matter was that the rules state he couldnt rejoin, they're instantly classed as a mechanical failure or whatever, and their days racing is over as it would be IRL. Its a shame it has to be done, especially as in this case it was on the opening lap, but if you allow it on the opening lap then you have to allow it on the last, and thats not right. It shouldnt have took as much 'chatter' as it did, I tried to keep it short and accurate, i dont think there was much more than maybe 3 messages from myself, but still i appologise if it was a further cause for distraction to those racing.
As for the mid-race antics, i didnt have any objection (and tbh im not sure on the official line) to anyone coming back and spectating, however I intentionally kept the chat history on-screen for quite a while to be aware of a 'Jica82 has left the pits' message but it wasnt until his teammate returned and IIRC asked something along the lines of 'whats happening' and thats when i checked the history and spotted he'd left the pits at some time. At the time i happened to be following the mid-field scrap (18th-23rd roughly) as it had been quite close and seemed the most likely location for any incidents, and before i knew anything theres Jica82 getting in the way of the people just coming to pass him.
I spent too long d**king about trying to /ban (im thick, i wasnt aware i could just click 'ban', assumed it would just bring up a vote and i didnt want to disrupt any further than was already going on) and thankfully everyone managed to boot him, and NoFear out.
Again, my appologies for not spotted his 'left the pits' message, i dont know if i was distracted by something else or the (fairly) frequent pitting that was going on anyway, and also the fact that i was effectively feck all use getting the guy out.
I spoke to Arrow at the time both had been kicked out, and requested their removal from the series due to the actions and attitudes of both drivers, its their responsibility to check the rules and they broke them on multiple occasions each. I actually dug through the applications and ironically i'd actually posted after their ([KR]) application stating that IMO an unknown 3-man team isnt acceptable for this series, mainly on the basis of too few drivers, how wrong was I, the less the better it seems!
Incidently, one of the KR guys thought it'd be a good idea after being banned from server #2 to go join server #1! Thankfully Arrow acted quicker than myself, god knows what his intentions would have been.
As for the mid-race antics, i didnt have any objection (and tbh im not sure on the official line) to anyone coming back and spectating, however I intentionally kept the chat history on-screen for quite a while to be aware of a 'Jica82 has left the pits' message but it wasnt until his teammate returned and IIRC asked something along the lines of 'whats happening' and thats when i checked the history and spotted he'd left the pits at some time. At the time i happened to be following the mid-field scrap (18th-23rd roughly) as it had been quite close and seemed the most likely location for any incidents, and before i knew anything theres Jica82 getting in the way of the people just coming to pass him.
I spent too long d**king about trying to /ban (im thick, i wasnt aware i could just click 'ban', assumed it would just bring up a vote and i didnt want to disrupt any further than was already going on) and thankfully everyone managed to boot him, and NoFear out.
Again, my appologies for not spotted his 'left the pits' message, i dont know if i was distracted by something else or the (fairly) frequent pitting that was going on anyway, and also the fact that i was effectively feck all use getting the guy out.
I spoke to Arrow at the time both had been kicked out, and requested their removal from the series due to the actions and attitudes of both drivers, its their responsibility to check the rules and they broke them on multiple occasions each. I actually dug through the applications and ironically i'd actually posted after their ([KR]) application stating that IMO an unknown 3-man team isnt acceptable for this series, mainly on the basis of too few drivers, how wrong was I, the less the better it seems!
Incidently, one of the KR guys thought it'd be a good idea after being banned from server #2 to go join server #1! Thankfully Arrow acted quicker than myself, god knows what his intentions would have been.
If you look, all i ever did was ask if any of the things i'd mentioned were considered, because i havent yet seen any talk of testing being done anywhere other than KY3, and i also wanted reassurance that pitting differences would be taken into account.
Instead, i get a jackass who cant read and decides to start insulting me, suggesting i have no right to comment on things, and should just shut up and drive! I think im well within my rights to say thats bang out of order!
You can go **** yourself! If you cant bloody read what someone says and start going off on your high & mighty rants then thats not my fault.
Ahah, we’ve hit the nail firmly on the head with that reply, all becomes clear!
Point out ONCE where I negatively criticised your system at all.
Point out ONCE where I called you, your system or anyone else stupid or inferred something along those lines.
NEED I MAKE MYSELF ANY CLEARER FOR YOU!!?? If your system IS purely based on bhp then now I will call you and your system stupid and destined to fail, and I’ll withdraw my faith in your ability (trust me its looking thin either way!) to balance these cars suitably.
So that was your problem, you cant read, easily jump to conclusions and become extremely sensitive to criticism, particularly when you read it wrongly and get your knickers in a twist! So basically all these insults have been based on your inability to read properly.
“Gas Guzzling sure didn't keep the FZR from being the dominant car last season by a fairly large margin”
exactly, it was shit balancing.
“Tire Eating sure wasn't what held back the FXR last season.”
exactly, it was shit balancing.
But now you have the ability to balance them, and when you’ve got them doing identical lap times, do you want the gas guzzling and tyre eating to screw things up? Obviously not, so they have to be taken into account regardless of them being able to do the same laptime.
If your already considering the things being pointed out, then what’s the problem with just saying ‘yes, we are aware of this, thank you eitherway’ rather than rudely telling people to shut up and drive!? Fact is, you hadn’t said if you’ve looked into it, and im trying to make sure that this isn’t being overlooked if all that is being compared was fastest laptimes on one location, as I say, all it takes is for you to say these results already take it into consideration, that’s the next step in balancing, or you don’t give a hoot and would rather play hopscotch.
“hmmm.... you're good at stating the obvious”
Yes, and your crap at reading peoples posts correctly, seems were both good at stating the obvious!
“See above statement about independant tests”
Oh I see, you don’t want me to ask if you’ve covered potential problems ive spotted, for that I get insulted, but you’re willing for everyone to go off make up their own set of random numbers and you’ll be very forthcoming will you? Maybe I will do that, and at the first sign of a question I’ll go off on a clueless rant on them, before calling them a tosser.
“You could have been part of the solution too.”
Until you opened you mouth I would have been part of the solution! was that the intended impact?
“Never actually said those things”
Well f**k me, you don’t know what a question mark is do you!? When a sentence ends with this funny little squiggly character (?) it means it is a question, not a statement. It means I am asking you to clarify the sentence, with that clarification I can then form a better opinion of whether your working outs are infact worthless or actually have an ounce of merit to them.
“, and have actually considered them.”
So what your saying is, the only point I made differently to Banshee (Not viper!) happens to be something you agree on!?!? But hey, tell me to shut up and drive and continue to make a class A prat out of yourself.
“Your call, but really it's like voting for the president over here in the USA. If you don't turn up and vote, you really don't have a reason to complain about who's elected.”
Does that mean that just like all the votes that were made null in Florida, we can disregard your comments under the conclusion that you cant really read too good and are possibly stating the wrong opinion? Hey, I’d vote, but you know what, if one of the presidential candidates referred me a tosser can you guess whether or not I’d be voting for them?
In conclusion, you wrongly assumed (well, mis-read) I was calling your system stupid, assumed I wouldn’t have helped out, started ranting about something I hadn’t even suggested, refered to me as a tosser, and confirmed that everything that ive said you are either planning to look into or have already done so. Don’t expect me to not take offense when you cannot read and jump to the conclusion of what someone else thinks of your method.
Do you now see why reading what people post more carefully can actually help?
Point out ONCE where I negatively criticised your system at all.
Point out ONCE where I called you, your system or anyone else stupid or inferred something along those lines.
NEED I MAKE MYSELF ANY CLEARER FOR YOU!!?? If your system IS purely based on bhp then now I will call you and your system stupid and destined to fail, and I’ll withdraw my faith in your ability (trust me its looking thin either way!) to balance these cars suitably.
So that was your problem, you cant read, easily jump to conclusions and become extremely sensitive to criticism, particularly when you read it wrongly and get your knickers in a twist! So basically all these insults have been based on your inability to read properly.
“Gas Guzzling sure didn't keep the FZR from being the dominant car last season by a fairly large margin”
exactly, it was shit balancing.
“Tire Eating sure wasn't what held back the FXR last season.”
exactly, it was shit balancing.
But now you have the ability to balance them, and when you’ve got them doing identical lap times, do you want the gas guzzling and tyre eating to screw things up? Obviously not, so they have to be taken into account regardless of them being able to do the same laptime.
If your already considering the things being pointed out, then what’s the problem with just saying ‘yes, we are aware of this, thank you eitherway’ rather than rudely telling people to shut up and drive!? Fact is, you hadn’t said if you’ve looked into it, and im trying to make sure that this isn’t being overlooked if all that is being compared was fastest laptimes on one location, as I say, all it takes is for you to say these results already take it into consideration, that’s the next step in balancing, or you don’t give a hoot and would rather play hopscotch.
“hmmm.... you're good at stating the obvious”
Yes, and your crap at reading peoples posts correctly, seems were both good at stating the obvious!
“See above statement about independant tests”
Oh I see, you don’t want me to ask if you’ve covered potential problems ive spotted, for that I get insulted, but you’re willing for everyone to go off make up their own set of random numbers and you’ll be very forthcoming will you? Maybe I will do that, and at the first sign of a question I’ll go off on a clueless rant on them, before calling them a tosser.
“You could have been part of the solution too.”
Until you opened you mouth I would have been part of the solution! was that the intended impact?
“Never actually said those things”
Well f**k me, you don’t know what a question mark is do you!? When a sentence ends with this funny little squiggly character (?) it means it is a question, not a statement. It means I am asking you to clarify the sentence, with that clarification I can then form a better opinion of whether your working outs are infact worthless or actually have an ounce of merit to them.
“, and have actually considered them.”
So what your saying is, the only point I made differently to Banshee (Not viper!) happens to be something you agree on!?!? But hey, tell me to shut up and drive and continue to make a class A prat out of yourself.
“Your call, but really it's like voting for the president over here in the USA. If you don't turn up and vote, you really don't have a reason to complain about who's elected.”
Does that mean that just like all the votes that were made null in Florida, we can disregard your comments under the conclusion that you cant really read too good and are possibly stating the wrong opinion? Hey, I’d vote, but you know what, if one of the presidential candidates referred me a tosser can you guess whether or not I’d be voting for them?
In conclusion, you wrongly assumed (well, mis-read) I was calling your system stupid, assumed I wouldn’t have helped out, started ranting about something I hadn’t even suggested, refered to me as a tosser, and confirmed that everything that ive said you are either planning to look into or have already done so. Don’t expect me to not take offense when you cannot read and jump to the conclusion of what someone else thinks of your method.
Do you now see why reading what people post more carefully can actually help?
And thats the attitude taken to someone who's offering constructive critisism??
Well F**k me sideways!!
For your information, I HAD every intention of being there tomorrow night, and i've just asked Viper if he'll be there and would have spoke to the others who are considering the GT2 class, but frankly im more inclined to say 'go f**k yourself' after reading that!
You've neither responded to my points, or gone on a rant about something im even commenting on!
Not unreasonable they should have equal HP? sure, doesnt make it conclusive though! It's unreasonable to think Weight, Power and ease to drive is everything that plays a part in a race series!
Tell me if im right or wrong here, because you funnily enough failed to comment on them when i brought the question up the first time...
* All the results are gathered from ONE track, despite the series being on 6.
* Power to weight ratio means sod all if one is a gas guzzler or tyre thrasher and has to pit more frequently.
Your going to insult everyones intellegence by saying those 2 factors have ZERO relevence to the equal balance of the GT1 OR GT2 class? Tracks dont have different characteristics, and by matching them all to 1 track means they're balanced at all locations, and that provided all the cars can do the same laptime that just because one car requires a pitstop in <95% or >105% of the time others blow them is fairly balanced, or at least acceptable to MoE?
I guess when this becomes apparent after a race or 2 then its back to the 'shut up and drive' attitude or does the double standards your displaying now, "should have helped", get brought up?
So if you'd kindly get off your high horse and consider for just a moment that people are pointing out potential weaknesses in your charts which you may want to consider rather than telling people to shut up and drive! Incase you hadnt noticed im not the only one wondering about whether or not p/w ratio is the be-all and end-all, arent you going to belittle Banshee for possibly doubting your p/w ratio?
So thanks for the needless rant, and good luck with the testing because frankly i've lost interest in giving up another 2+hrs of my evening in LFS this weekend, and its ironic that quite a few of our drivers have been the ones turning up helping with the balancing information thats got you this far!
Its your call really, either you want feedback or you dont, the 'shut up and drive' attitude is nothing short of an insult from people asking to help make things balanced while arrogantly refusing to accept they're being narrow minded on the areas which come into play.
Well F**k me sideways!!
For your information, I HAD every intention of being there tomorrow night, and i've just asked Viper if he'll be there and would have spoke to the others who are considering the GT2 class, but frankly im more inclined to say 'go f**k yourself' after reading that!
You've neither responded to my points, or gone on a rant about something im even commenting on!
Not unreasonable they should have equal HP? sure, doesnt make it conclusive though! It's unreasonable to think Weight, Power and ease to drive is everything that plays a part in a race series!
Tell me if im right or wrong here, because you funnily enough failed to comment on them when i brought the question up the first time...
* All the results are gathered from ONE track, despite the series being on 6.
* Power to weight ratio means sod all if one is a gas guzzler or tyre thrasher and has to pit more frequently.
Your going to insult everyones intellegence by saying those 2 factors have ZERO relevence to the equal balance of the GT1 OR GT2 class? Tracks dont have different characteristics, and by matching them all to 1 track means they're balanced at all locations, and that provided all the cars can do the same laptime that just because one car requires a pitstop in <95% or >105% of the time others blow them is fairly balanced, or at least acceptable to MoE?
I guess when this becomes apparent after a race or 2 then its back to the 'shut up and drive' attitude or does the double standards your displaying now, "should have helped", get brought up?
So if you'd kindly get off your high horse and consider for just a moment that people are pointing out potential weaknesses in your charts which you may want to consider rather than telling people to shut up and drive! Incase you hadnt noticed im not the only one wondering about whether or not p/w ratio is the be-all and end-all, arent you going to belittle Banshee for possibly doubting your p/w ratio?
So thanks for the needless rant, and good luck with the testing because frankly i've lost interest in giving up another 2+hrs of my evening in LFS this weekend, and its ironic that quite a few of our drivers have been the ones turning up helping with the balancing information thats got you this far!
Its your call really, either you want feedback or you dont, the 'shut up and drive' attitude is nothing short of an insult from people asking to help make things balanced while arrogantly refusing to accept they're being narrow minded on the areas which come into play.
Ahh, that must be so you and your teammates can watch the series that you signed up to do and havent bothered turning up for?
Jica82 had disconnected and then joined the server and spectated for a while, unfortunately it wasnt until the other KR guy joined ('NoFear' - lfsname dmwright) who i'd already made it perfectly clear couldnt rejoin that i noticed his teammate had actually rejoined the track and was just starting to blend in with people having a decent scrap.
Both have been kicked, and then banned. I know at least one of them joined server #1 and was subsequently banned from there and probably #3 just in case. Probably safe to say we wont be seeing them around in BOTT for some time!!
Both have been kicked, and then banned. I know at least one of them joined server #1 and was subsequently banned from there and probably #3 just in case. Probably safe to say we wont be seeing them around in BOTT for some time!!
Mercury Racing
#1 - Bawbag
#2 - Barroso or Rooble
Arrow - Cant guarantee i'll be around 'tonight' to be server 3 (or 4!) admin, but if im here count me in.
if you need a replacement this might help the stand-in:
'Dont ask me, i have no idea'
'yeah, just do what you like'
'anyone wanna play cops & robbers??'
worked a treat for me last round
#1 - Bawbag
#2 - Barroso or Rooble
Arrow - Cant guarantee i'll be around 'tonight' to be server 3 (or 4!) admin, but if im here count me in.
if you need a replacement this might help the stand-in:
'Dont ask me, i have no idea'
'yeah, just do what you like'
'anyone wanna play cops & robbers??'
worked a treat for me last round
I'd have to agree, if closely balanced cars is the aim, then something that will help acheive that needs to be done. Assuming they're all equal if they have the same BHP from my standpoint sounds rather stupid, so i'll trust that more thought is being put into the balance of the cars than making sure they have the same power running through them because tyre wear and fuel consumption should certainly be taken into account.
In last years MoE we had 90% of the field running the same car because it had a clear advantage, this time round we have the ability to correct that, and hopefully everything is being considered to make the car choice as (reasonably) insignificant as possible.
I guess proof of whether its evenly balanced or not will be clear when all the applications are in. Hopefully it wont turn GT2 classes into XRR vs XRR etc and we'll see some races where one car has a clear advantage at one round and not at the next, as you tend to see IRL and we saw at BL last time round with the XRRs becoming much more competitive there. Then again, you'd also hope the balance testing isnt based purely on 1 tracks findings because it needs to be balanced over a season, not 1 track. So if this happened to be a track the FXR happened to perform well at, and all others not so well, and you make the FXR slower so its more inkeeping then its going to suffer even more at the other tracks, likewise for the other cars. So far all talk of testing refers to results from KYGP...
In last years MoE we had 90% of the field running the same car because it had a clear advantage, this time round we have the ability to correct that, and hopefully everything is being considered to make the car choice as (reasonably) insignificant as possible.
I guess proof of whether its evenly balanced or not will be clear when all the applications are in. Hopefully it wont turn GT2 classes into XRR vs XRR etc and we'll see some races where one car has a clear advantage at one round and not at the next, as you tend to see IRL and we saw at BL last time round with the XRRs becoming much more competitive there. Then again, you'd also hope the balance testing isnt based purely on 1 tracks findings because it needs to be balanced over a season, not 1 track. So if this happened to be a track the FXR happened to perform well at, and all others not so well, and you make the FXR slower so its more inkeeping then its going to suffer even more at the other tracks, likewise for the other cars. So far all talk of testing refers to results from KYGP...
Voted for All the plate stuff, but not fussed if we need a visor or not really.
But could i suggest 'sign up order' be changed to have last seasons finishing order, THEN sign-up order, just to acknowledge those that took part last year really.
Mercury = 1 & 2
Elite = 3 & 4
1st = 5 & 6 etc
Assuming they're each taking part, and then the new teams continue where last seasons finish. I dont suppose it makes much difference really, but i do think its nice if the numbers reflected past results.
If your working in php which sounds the most likely as you mentioned SQL'ing it, i might be able to help on some of the smaller side aspects, im good at using existing things to get what i want, i just dont have the ability to make the original tool to start with. As you've seen ive been able to build/replicate last seasons structure and have it automatically utilise the scoring system you used and it worked fine, but it requires the manual work of throwing in race results which is something i'd really love to scrap, but dont know how to go about getting this, either from LFSW, parsing MPR's, or an insim/outsim(shakeitallaboutsim) type program logging the info in the background etc so if your able to get that out i'd be happy to help with the surrounding parts.
You confused me with divisions AND classes, the first comment (A) talks about the 2 classes, UF1 & UFR, the second comment (B) mentions them being equally skilled. Thats why i didnt get what you were talking about.
I used excel to calculate everything, nothing more than the use of sum() and it gets the job done easy enough.
Im still trying to finish off the website i showed you guys a while back, mainly i want an MPR parsing feature, so race results dont need to be put in there manually it just yanks it from the race replay. The less manual work done by the user the fewer chances of mistakes being made and tbh one of the main reasons i decided to start building it was because of the unique manner in which you guys calculated the points, unique in the way that they were never correct
Or early October and miss the first 2 rounds
Theres a few things in there I definately agree with. I've always liked the idea of dropping rounds, but i feel it gets ignored because of rule #294 'They dont drop rounds/points in real life' which is fine, but until people are paid similar sums to real racers i think it would help some people by allowing rounds to be dropped if something crops up, it encourages people to turn up even if they've missed a race, it also allows the weakest result (or 2, whatever) to be dropped, so a mistake is less costly, particularly if its one you had no part in.
Short tracks
No point in racing round FE Black and never seeing another soul after a couple of corners, smaller tracks mean quicker to learn, means less emphasis on spending too much time on practicing. Granted it doesnt mean wing it, but its easier to learn FE Club's few corners than FE Gold's.
Ballast will be tricky, it should be carried over from one event to the next, but also needs to be reduced fairly if you have a bad race, thats the tricky bit IMO.
Say 1st-3rd get +15/10/5kg added, with a maximum of 20kg to a car. Then 4th-6th can have -5/10/15 dropped, 7th onwards removes all ballast.
I think if you give ballast to any more people than the top 3, say top 5, then it means you've got to finish further down than 5th in order to lose weight, which means your going to end up with a lot of people carrying maximum ballast, if you keep finishing 5th your going to keep getting weight added and before long be on the same weight as someone frequently finishing 1st-3rd when you both hit the max ballast.
Maybe it could be ballast based on the last 3 races?? But then thats messy, veeeeery messy, would be fine IRL but theres too much emphasis on the driver knowing what they should be carrying (which may be tricky enough as it is).
Eitherway, i'd definately suggest that if Ballast is used (and i fully support the idea of it) then it needs to be thought through carefully.
Still prefer 1 class on track at a time, i like (and would compete in) 2 seperate events, UF1 and UFr (baby R), but would still sooner see 30 people in the same spec car racing each other rather than 15 of each, last season the numbers dropped and when it got to 7-8 people it got a bit dull (not dull dull, but it deserved more people being there than the numbers that turned up!) and was good again when the final round came along and everyone was thrown into the same server.
I like the idea of using a detuned UFR, should be interesting.
From the original outline, if the possibility of doing 2 races per week is on the table, could it not be done as one on say Tuesday which is the basic UF1 and have that as its own series, and on a Thursday have the UF1.3 so that both sides are happy, and anyone wanting to do both can do so without anyone being forced into doing 2 meetings a week, they just do their prefered race. I guess if they only have 2-3 specific days a week they're free it could still be a problem, but thats a problem every series faces.
I dont see why 'skill' should come into it though, or how/why they'd face off at the end of the season, they're different cars so putting them all into 1 wouldnt be fair on the other class (UFR almost certainly) running the other class for a season finale.
I dont like the full grid reversals, with 10-16 people it wasnt easy, with 30+ it'd be a nightmare, but i think top 8 would be managable, though i'll always favour drivers starting a race where they finished, i know the arguement but it'll never seem fair in my eyes to move people down because they've done well. Ballast is a different thing, that aims to balance things out, reversing grids aims to provide 'entertainment' rather than closer racing.
Teeeeeams!!!!
I liked that, its secondary to the main driver title, get it back in
People having to attend 2 races a week might be a problem, its always a compromise agreeing one day of the week to run on, having 2 that you have to commit to is going to be a struggle. 2 a Fortnight is okay, as long as that really means one a week
Can we start tonight?
From the original outline, if the possibility of doing 2 races per week is on the table, could it not be done as one on say Tuesday which is the basic UF1 and have that as its own series, and on a Thursday have the UF1.3 so that both sides are happy, and anyone wanting to do both can do so without anyone being forced into doing 2 meetings a week, they just do their prefered race. I guess if they only have 2-3 specific days a week they're free it could still be a problem, but thats a problem every series faces.
I dont see why 'skill' should come into it though, or how/why they'd face off at the end of the season, they're different cars so putting them all into 1 wouldnt be fair on the other class (UFR almost certainly) running the other class for a season finale.
I dont like the full grid reversals, with 10-16 people it wasnt easy, with 30+ it'd be a nightmare, but i think top 8 would be managable, though i'll always favour drivers starting a race where they finished, i know the arguement but it'll never seem fair in my eyes to move people down because they've done well. Ballast is a different thing, that aims to balance things out, reversing grids aims to provide 'entertainment' rather than closer racing.
Teeeeeams!!!!
I liked that, its secondary to the main driver title, get it back in
People having to attend 2 races a week might be a problem, its always a compromise agreeing one day of the week to run on, having 2 that you have to commit to is going to be a struggle. 2 a Fortnight is okay, as long as that really means one a week
Can we start tonight?
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).
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.
a SECOND attempt at clarifying things, pointing out that your reading into the comment in completely the wrong way.... and just on cue
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.
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??
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??
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.
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
Last edited by 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.
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.
God your vain!
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!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG