GT1 will be using master server balancing this season. There is no balancing by power/weight ratio beyond what the devs employ.
GT2 is a separate case, and will be treated as such. Our goal is to bring the cars as close as possible in terms of lap/stint times, and we'll pursue that goal until we achieve it, or until it becomes clear that no one will be happy with the results and we go for the mGT. Personally, I have faith that we can figure out proper balancing--it mostly worked out last year.
As for the mGTs being too slow... frankly, if real world LMP drivers can handle 911s, etc, being on-track, I think the best of the best in LFS could handle the GTR/mGT differential. We never tested it last year, so all the speculation about it being chaos is just that--speculation. It worked out fine in LFS GT, and in the 24hrs of Kyoto Rev race last year.
Finally, this thread is not for debating the choice of 2nd class--it's for signups for the test race. We'd appreciate it if you'd keep it as such. Thanks.
Isnt that exactly what the master server is balancing by? (thats a geniune question) if its not, what the heck is it balancing it by, sadly its not balanced by anything which succeeds in making it balanced. Wouldnt you agree?
I certainly dont disagree on enforcing the closeness if that is the aim of this series, which is why i dont understand why its not so important for the GT1 to be done in a similar manner. Should we ever really accept master server values for anything when we can chose actually balanced ones? We lose that closeness by accepting something which isnt offering that, at least thats the impression ive got from things so far.
Why settle for less? If its worth spending time to get the balance of things right in GT2, the secondary class, surely the GT1 is deserving of the same at least.
Sure, but im only going on the exact reason it was rejected last season.
NGT or whatever its labeled as, was the more popular option, but was rejected on the basis that it wasnt really viable due to the significant speed differences. "Even though the move to a two-classed field before the start of the season was much debated, the organizers are very happy with how the racing turned out."
We had a situation last season where our GT2 car was taken out because an extremely experienced GT1 team because they wouldnt wait 1 corner to make a pass, and decided to try and squeeze through the tiniest of gaps between 2 GT2 cars on a corner where the car is close to its limits. What will it be like when the corner speeds arent almost identical, and instead its a lot slower in corners? You knew this last season, which was why we ignored the confusion of identical cars with different powers and no visable markings to identify them (instead teams resorting to doing it themselves) and despite the obvious solution of going with a carbon copy of LFS GT and everyone enjoying the summer instead you picked the sensible (and successful) option of what we went with... and we *may* throw that out the window if its not perfect? (GT1 certainly isnt, but theres no threats of TBOs for them). I'll leave you to consider why comparing 911's to a FWD NGT is all a bit silly, unless they're in reverse?
Last season we won the GT1 class, stepping out of the comfort zone of the FZR which 90% of teams ran, and explored what was best for us, and exploited its advantages.
If we have to be boring in our attempt to defend our title in GT1 in the same car as those trying to take it of us, thats fair enough, ultimately we'll always run whatever we're fastest in. Last season we managed to win races with a car many saw as an underdog, (we expected at least 1 other big team to follow into xrr) but this season it seems theres no choice, no options on what you wanted to drive to be competitive, but if everyone is in the same car it creates equality, so on that respect at least the decision doesnt ruin things for everyone, it just means your forced to run 1 car in you want your results to match the work involved (ie not doing a perfect drive but it only being good enough for 4th cos its an uncompetitive car).
If thats the route were going down, or its something simply not up for discussion, then so be it i'll leave it at that, i've said my peice on the matter. It'd be a shame to lose mixed car racing and go back to near 1-car grids again and losing that aspect of racing which i personally found interesting. It just seemed to be an element of lazyness by accepting GT1 yet an enthusiasm for fixing GT2 and i couldnt understand it. I know now the reason behind not changing GT1 is due to the master server, it still doesnt seem right while the GT2 gets fixed the GT1 stays 'broke'. Clearly the attitude isnt 'sod it, we cant be arsed' otherwise we wouldnt be looking at the GT2 situation so that aspect is certainly pleasing, im just a little mystified why the same approach isnt taken for the exact same reasons, where the GT1 class is concerned.
Eitherway im eager to do some GT2 laps, still undecided which i prefer as the XRR was plenty for me to cope with (FWD FTW!! ), FXR should never really be a race winning car, and FZR seems fastest but its a handful and goes through fuel & tyres.
last Q, purely out of curiosity, (and assuming we stick to GT1 MS values) if there is a global change of similar proportion to the one experienced last season, what then? Do we ignore balancing questions because they were never really balanced to begin with, or re-unbalance it back in the bias favour of the FZR? Again, a geniune question, and something i think needs to be considered and planned against.
Im not trying to be a c*nt (whether it seems im acheiving that or not, i'll leave that to your own enterpretation, but its said in the interest of the series), I just feel half pleased and half disappointed from what im reading. Pleased the GT2 class will be worked on to get a good balance, and appreciative of the work people will put into achieving that. Yet disappointed the same effort might not be afforded to the GT1 for the very same reasons we want to work on the GT2 class, the interest of entertaining and close/fair racing (without all being in the same car to acheive that). Maybe this is the easier option, it saves arguements, but we're risking that with the GT2s in the hope of gaining from it in the end instead of stat balancing and leaving people with little option but the 1 car if they want to be competitive, mirroring the GT1 class.
I respect your decision, im just wondering how you came to them, offering a differing view, and hopefully i'll arrive at the same conclusion your already at, if not then fair enough its a difference of opinion, its definately not something which ruins things, i just feel it loses a little of its magic we got back in the series last season, yet it'll still be the same top quality racing, and the biggest series on the LFS calendar.
I think that, at the moment, the FZR and XRR are pretty comparable in the hands of skilled drivers. FZR probably has a slight edge in raw speed, but as has been noted thousands of times elsewhere, it loses out in tire wear and gas consumption. The FXR lags behind but is easier to keep out of trouble. This has become the accepted situation in the GTR class, and I think most teams are comfortable with it.
Personally, I'm not convinced that the GTR class (the XRR and FZR, anyway) can be balanced any more closely than they currently are, due to the aforementioned tire/fuel consumption issues and the general differences in the cars' construction. I think that, all things considered, it's best to let it alone rather than tinker with it at this point. The GT2s, on the other hand, have to be tinkered with since they all have to be intake-restricted. If there were a master server-balanced GT2 class that was balanced as well as the current GTR class, I'd be glad to use its values as well.
The majority of the admin team active now was not active when the decision was made last season. As you can tell, we new guys see things a bit differently.
LMP:GTR::911:nGTR. I know you're not that slow.
Generally, I think each physics patch brings the cars in a class closer together, and in the past Scawen has even directly addressed this. If, however, a patch were to significantly disrupt the current balance, we would of course address re-balancing. And any significant physics change means that teams will be allowed to select a new car if they wish.
Yes, we applaud a mixed grid just as much as you do; Our main motivation to host a GT2 test event and leave the GT1 class as it is, is simply that GT1 class is defined by LFS, and GT2 is not. That's also the reason if we cannot find a consensus about the GT2 class, we will change the GT2 class in mGT, simply because the used sim is LFS and we as league admin/ organizers want to focus on maximising running the league the very best way possible, not deal with class balances to a full extent. Yes, we will make the necessary alterations by options not provided by LFS (GT2 class), but in general we want to belancing to come forth from LFS.
Your concern about the lack of mixed class might be misplaced, as you noted yourself, thinking outside the box did definitely helped your team to excell last season, and has shown the potential of other cars rather than just the FZR as an endurance car. Frankly with the promises of Scawen (as addressed by DWB) to work closer to a well balanced class (while maintaining each car's identitiy) and last season's outcome I am not worried at all that the GT1 class will be ran as FZR only.
As your issue with the class marking, that discussion is related to a different subject, but is will be addressed in the rules for season 08/09 (which will be released in the near future).
Hopefully the above will give you some better insight in about the motivations behind the descisions made, and helps you understand these decisions a bit better.
okay, thanks for the reply and clearing a few things up for me, hopefully people will still consider the XRR this season and prove my early conclusions to be wrong. I havent seen much of it in action since the recent update as people tend to focus on the FZR day to day and that progresses in setups but the XRR gets left behind, which is why i think it was dismissed by so many last year as an uncompetitive car for GT1, a lack of time spent building a conclusion on its effectiveness and instead opting for the familiar option because its instantly faster. Although having Bagbag, Jonesy and Rooble also helps
In GT2 at least most of us have last years setups to start with, get an idea of their pace to begin with, and spend some time working on the other 2 cars and see if they're any good now, rather than starting from scratch with all 3.
Penalty weight according to championship standings for GT1: automagic balancing.
I think every negative point about this suggestion can be countered by the fact that in the end the best will win anyway.. So with that cleared, what's left is the pro of the suggestion (and the solution for the main "issue") close(r)-racing.
I've had some positive replies to this in PM's, but so far no support here..
Just noticed the thread is originally meant to be a GT2 discussion, so apologies for going off-topic, but is there really no basis for this suggestion?
Fine, if you really want feedback, its a stupid idea.
I'd support it to a degree if every race was worth exactly the same amount, however someone will go into the 24hr race with a heavier car than everyone else, and will be at a significant disadvantage because the cost of finishing further back is far greater. You'd be supporting the idea that whoever went into that race is penalised, twice as much as any other round, for going into the race as the leading team.
If the success penalty introduced is going to influence results then it means the results dont accurately reflect the teams ability, it hinders it.
If it doesnt influence results, whats the point of having it then?
The damage of a lower finish than you deserve (due to weight) at most tracks isnt that much, but when the damage is doubled (24hr), finishing even 3rd purely because the weight slowed you down slightly means the same thing as finishing around 8th any other race, god help you if you have a bad day too.
Anyone that supports the possibility of finishing higher than you deserve to, purely because your competition is being slowed down to give you a chance, needs to make more of an effort to be faster, perhap then they can do well on merit, rather than because the faster teams are being made to drive with a hand tied behind their back.
This is MoE, last season went down to the wire, #Low needed to win by 8pts. Is that Dull? The fact that the 2 teams who'd driven consistantly well were the 2 teams fighting for the title, is that not how it should be? Should it really be a fight between the 2 teams who deserve it and another 2 who got help to keep up but deep down we all know werent the best teams?
What about previous seasons? IIRC the 06/07 season had 3 teams able to win in the last race and it could have gone to any team midway through that last race. Was there any lame system involved faking results, distorting the truth, or was it just the reality of 3 top teams being there on merit?
Maybe i missed something, but whatever happened to the idea of the fastest team winning the race? Call me old fashioned, but i thought that was the idea of racing?
Did Bolt win an olympic gold carrying a midget on his back in the 100m sprint? Did Phelps get an extra +5kg lead weight tied to him each time he picked up another gold medal to try and ensure someone else got one instead? Thats something i'd have paid to see, afterall, we cant have the fast people winning, its an outragious concept!!! I got it! They should just ban the fast people!!
No wonder they all sent it in PMs, they werent stupid enough to admit to it
I was quite happy to let your comments slide into obscurity, forgotten as they should be, but as your asking for comments.... thank you for letting me get that out of my system
I love the fact that you use the reasons i stated, you just dont like the fact that i highlight how stupid it is, and how they dont feel the need to do equally stupid things in other sports, and people wouldnt dream of suggesting they did.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer from a stupid person, and they dont come much stupider than me.
I gave him the chance to let the idea disappear, asking for feedback wasnt a smart move, not when im on the prowl looking for someone to take the mickey out of, and it allowed me to get some sarcastic comments out of my system, the forum will be safe for a couple of hours, i'll divert all p*ss taking to pecker for the rest of the night
Just as well i removed the bit about contacting scawen to ask if they could make caravans so some of us could tow those round with us, or the rule that said at each pit-stop the drivers had to drink a pint of beer, or the lucky dip winner instead of us all wasting time racing for random results. See, i have my own wacky ideas for ruining the series, and i'd certainly expect others to call me an idiot if i was being serious about them, if they didnt i'd be very concerned
p.s. they were geniunely going to be in the previous posts, im geniunely trying, im just as good at being polite as i am at being quick
The thing is that although you think "letting things out of your system" makes you feel funny, most people simply thinks you're short of a prick because of the way you state things, even if you have a point.
You see, smileys dont change the bottom line.
PS "I gave him the chance to let the idea disappear" Sheesh LOL who the hell you think you are?
BTW, and for the record, Im also against the use of success ballast.
who am i?
Im someone who desperately seeks the approval of other people on the forum like you. Im someone who darent speak their mind just incase I offend someone pathetic who'll take offense at nothing. I just go around pretending to be everyones best friend. :shhh:
:vomit:
I would have said his idea was stupid when he first brought it up, I decided not to. He then asked for feedback, so i gave it, full and frank.
:lovies:
HUGS AND KISSES TO EVERYONE!!!!!
:grouphug:
So what has been decided? Will we run with GT2 or mGT? I think many teams are waiting for this answer so that they know if they should run in GT1 or GT2... including my team... thats why we havent sent in an application yet. Also pls try and get the laydown of the restrictions, at least 2 weeks before the first race...
+1. I normally don't even read his post but he does have a decent point here.
No need to complain there, it's only going to be .3 or more faster on every track in GT1... I personally wouldn't mind see this class being a little nicer to the FXR (especially the FXR) and XRR. I ran the test race and they seem pretty close, but, only time will tell.
