The issue with the point table would still remain no matter how clean hot laps everyone would be able to do - no matter how much qualifying is a part of the race, it doesn't define how well a driver is at racing.
IMO, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, the upper pack on the lower pool deserves better scores than the lower pack at higher pool.
The numbers clearly shows that splitting up the point table too harsh like it is, is handicapping good racers - even when we know it can't be compared directly - which is why I'm not suggesting too big of an overlap.
What you (organizers) simply have done is to decide that this dude did that lap time, ergo doesn't he deserve better. You cut off every bit of opportunity because of a single lap.
Perhaps I should qualify for pool #1 and then end last on purpose and then laugh at the lower pool - thats what you're already doing IMO.
Think of this: Put ALL the drivers in ONE pool. Now, how do you hand out the points? I don't think in such a scenario it would be any problem. The reason there's pools, is simply because there's a limit to how many drivers you can have on a server/track at the same time. If a driver easily wins a lower pool, and setting a better time than half the drivers in the pool above, doesn't mean he would beat all those drivers if he was in their pool. Instead of being in front with good space and opportunity to set good times, he could very well be with the back pack in the higher pool fighting really hard for positions, thus not being able to set good lap times.
Look at any professional racing series and then tell me that some people aren't better at qualifying than racing and vice versa. Just with the closeness of the times the current system really is screwing people. I was off pole by 1 second and was 4th on server 2 and off server 1 by 1 tenth of a second with 3 people in between me and server 1, how many leagues do you see with that kind of gap? And do you really think I'm not capable of fighting with people on track that are within a few tenths of me in qualifying? (Which was a lot of people this race)
The only way to handle this semi-fairly if there was a change though would be to split the entire grid up into 3 servers with a similar distribution of times. (AKA, 1st goes to server 1, 2nd goes to server 2, 3rd goes to server 3, 4th goes to server 1, so on.) Although you could argue that this would be unfair to the people who qualified near the top who are now fighting a hotlapping battle against their closest competitors without any chance to fight them on the track.
I never said the point table should be like that (#1 from pool #2 being awarded for landing at 9th position @ pool #1 in this case).
I've always suggested to overlap with the lowest 5-10 drivers - because I DO believe that driver would have been better if we indeed had one big pool.
I also pointed out that Clement didn't have all road by him self - so even with rcpilot chasing him closely, they still ended far up there.
Besides you can't guarantee either that just because a driver didn't qualify better, that it would also mean he would be slower than upper pool no matter what.
I raised this way before round 1 - now we can see from the numbers what I was talking about, and I doubt round 2 etc will be much different.
I could also put it in another way: Since you're assuming this badly that leading drivers can't be faster than lower placed drivers from the upper pool, then whats the point in racing - why not just qualify, and end it there?!
I'm getting the feeling that you need a known fast driver, who for whatever unfortunate reason is unable to qualify for pool #1, gets stuck in lower pool, before you realize how bad this really is.
The overlap is a compromise because drivers are split into multiple servers - splitting points as you're doing, isn't in any way.
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.
This would be all well and good if we were like a normal racing series in the real world where one group of people all race on one track at once. How is it fair in the slightest that if you're at an arbitrary split point you're guaranteed to get a minimum result or limited to a maximum result? And saying that someone should just get better at qualifying is an insult. In a normal situation race pace is monumentally important compared to qualifying pace, but this system devalues race pace.
So show us a better alternative then, its that simple, you stick 90+ people into 1 race when the max is 1/3 that and guarantee fair results where everyone deserves to be where they are...
Thing is, it isnt possible and any complaining using misleading information to try and prove a point is just stupid.
As for whining about 'if your crap at qualifying' then maybe you shouldnt use your bias slant and use read into a comment only the way you wish to, the fact is if your BLAMING the series setup because your qualifying isnt as strong as others, and that is the SOLE reason your not racing with people your supposedly faster than, then maybe you should do something about it instead of whining. If qualifying is your weak spot, strenghten it, dont cry and expect rules to be bent around your weaknesses. You dont have people complaining races are too long because they're inconsistant drivers, so why is it acceptable for people who arent as good as others in qualifying to use their weakness as a series weakness.
Fit 'fair' around LFS's limits, make it fool-proof and faultless, where every result is just and fair for all... it should be fun, afterall, it only takes 1 person to take you out through no fault of your own and how is that fair?
I haven't said a single thing about me being specifically bad at qualifying. My qualifying for this race was a bit weaker than normal due to lack of prep time, but my qualifying pace pretty much brackets my fast lap pace within a couple tenths under normal circumstances. And I honestly don't expect to be on anything but server 1 if I race another one of these races for my team and the system's still the same. I'm complaining about a system being wrong and you're resorting to personal attacks. How often do you qualify at exactly the speed you race at? How fair is it to limit your results based on your qualifying whether you qualify worse or better than you race? And I did offer a suggestion but haven't heard anything about that.
This sounds pretty interesting, and I'd go one step further: split them as above, and award the same points-per-position on all servers. i.e., 1st on server 3 gets the same points as 1st on server 1. Sure, you'd have a bunch of ties after the first round, but after that it'd diversify pretty quickly. The element of chance is there (in terms of who you get paired up with on your server), but everyone has a good chance at points and everyone is facing roughly the same sort of traffic/same racing conditions.
I never said my suggestion was the perfect solution or in any way hinted it - I always said its "more fair", so please don't manipulate like that, Paul.
I would fix it with my suggestion - how can you ask? :P Or like rcpilot and DWB suggests - we did exactly that in a danish league and no one ever complained.
My suggestion is IMO better than how the system currently is since it would allow lower pool drivers to take a bite at the upper field ones- but if we keep at the current one, time will tell how bad it is - currently it's just a "selected few" - yah.. but just wait and see.
Actually, I prefer rcpilot's and DWB's suggestions over mine.
Anyways.. I brought it up again because I saw it as being an issue. I've set better focus on it vs. last time - so I did my job. Rest is up to the organizers... and I don't want to repeat myself.
I have another suggestion: we all remove our pants, take a pic and post it here. Racers with biggest arguments are welcome in pool 1.
More seriously, i think your suggestion would kill the race. The show need to have the best racers together on track, and, even if it seems hard for you, current system permits to have homogeneous pool.
Besides, a poll has already been done concerning division sorting, the season has started and i don't think it would be fair to change rules now.
Well, actually.. thats how I see the system now - the "argument" (qualify lap) doesn't prove the racing abilities.
I'm surprised to hear that - my suggestion only involves points, not how pools should be sorted.
Again, my suggestion doesn't mess with the overall system (which is why I made this exact suggestion in he first place - it brings th pools together without messing with too much, if anything at all).
I originally argued with "more fair and motivating", and that "current system is handicapping ppl too much only because of quali times". All my suggestion is about is to make the border between pools more transparent (with an overlap). It's not as if lower field qual times drops suddenly (for next pool pole position) - in worst case the difference would be 0.00 secs. But I guess I'm assuming they put in more effort to get that good finish than how the bottom field on upper pool pushes, eh? :|
If not for anything, then why not award them for the good finishes in the lower pools? That should be reason enough alone.
And too late.. well, of cause it is when none of the relevant persons listened in time - now I have numbers to present.. next time I'll have more... but I bet they will keep getting ignored because you can't compare different server - I wonder how many races it would take to see the pattern.. hm.
Qualifying is an extremely important skill in real racing. For the people that can't qualify well to dismiss those that can as "hotlappers" who by implication cannot race is a poor argument. If you cannot qualify well then get good at it.
Splitting the 3 servers equally would be a terrible idea. The fastest guys should race each other, full stop.
I do however see the merit in rewarding people on lower servers who, prima facie, do a better job in racing than some people on higher servers who finish well down their pool.
I would support a very modest overlap of points equal to only 5 positions maximum, possibly only 3. This could be implemented without overhauling the entire points system by adding bonus points for the first 3 to 5 places. This would make it easier to backdate if required.
However, if the rules remain as they are that is no problem - they are the same for everybody.
Maybe id be wrong at posting here, since quli ect and im not actually part of the series but.
I used to race in a Race-The WTCC game, and they had 4-5 pools of drivers after each race the lowest(3-7) would go down a pool while the others would go up.
Lol but then again i dont know how the points got awarded so im kinda useless lol but thats what makes a series hard if its not all one group, so good luck to the officials for figuring something out
Maybe the issue is already talked trough, but I would still like to say something. Let me give you one example why the points should not be overlapped.
Quali results:
Pool 1:
31. Driver1 1:33.25
32. Driver2 1:33.49
Pool 2:
1. Driver3 1:33.50
2. Driver4 1:33.76
You see where I'm getting with this. Would you rather be the Driver2 or Driver3 if the points would be overlapped?
I think the current point system is nothing more than fair + same for everyone.
Mogster: doesn't matter how close you qualify to the borders - what matters are the race results.
pod.hama Tube - pool #1 - qualified as 31 - gained 14 positions.
I watched him in replay to see if he was lucky - he fought for most of his positions - even lost 8 all at ones as he spinned due to contact with another car.
The sad part is that if he had qualified 0.06-7 sec slower, he would have ended in pool #2 - only to be raped by the current point system.
spdoMisan - pool #1 qualified as 19 - gained 13.
You would think it would get harder and harder to pass the closer you get towards top, eh?
DT gru 84 - pool #2 - qualified as 26, gained 8.
[CD] Celmo - pool #2 - qualified as 15, gained 5.
So yah, ppl are jumping all over the place on all servers - but some of you are thinking the qualify lap defines the driver - guess again.
An overlap would in no way make it perfect, but would make it more fair and be rewarding/motivational for the lower pools - as well as make the lower part more eager towards getting better finishes.
Paul, If ur suspecting me having worries then take a closer look at pool #1 results. We have a driver down below who would be affected negatively by my suggestion... so nah, not really.
I'll call for backup (scipy) to quote Carroll Smith about the importance of qualifying :P
Yes indeed, what matters is the race. But I think it's safe to say that in every aspect of racing a well executed qualifying has a huge importance. So why make it any less important in BOTT? And I really don't see why it's so big of a deal since it's same for everyone.
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.
"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.
In the main I agree Paul, and if the system stays as it is then the rules are the same for everyone and that's absolutely fine by me.
I am only advocating a tiny overlap of 3 places to reward those in the lower server who drive a better race than those who finish last on the higher server. It is rare that the slowest driver finishes last because there will always be faster drivers who mess up their races (or have their races messed up for them - granted). A tiny overlap is just a nod of recognition towards those who race well rather than do 1 good lap and then 50 poor laps.
I'll copy my first sentence because that is the really important part:
In the main I agree Paul, and if the system stays as it is then the rules are the same for everyone and that's absolutely fine by me.
All that this comes down to is that you think 20 minutes of qualifying is more important than 80 minutes of racing, which is total bs in my opinion. Poorer qualifiers often DO get more points than better qualifiers, because they're better race drivers. I don't think that someone who qualified 1 or 2 or even 5 tenths better than someone else is automatically entitled to up to 64 points more than them. A small overlap would be beneficial to competition and wouldn't be any more arbitrary than the current rules system.
Screaming at people until they stop arguing with you is a pretty shitty debate tactic and it makes your posts incredibly shrill and annoying to read. Take it down a few notches, maybe?
My qualifying for this race was a bit weaker than normal due to lack of prep time, but my qualifying pace pretty much brackets my fast lap pace within a couple tenths under normal circumstances. And I honestly don't expect to be on anything but server 1 if I race another one of these races for my team and the system's still the same. I'm complaining about a system being wrong and you're resorting to personal attacks. How often do you qualify at exactly the speed you race at? How fair is it to limit your results based on your qualifying whether you qualify worse or better than you race? And I did offer a suggestion but haven't heard anything about that.
its the way it should be IMO