Qualifying is part of the race, if someone is a poor qualifier, improve on it, or deal with it.
Just think about the other scenario, which was suggested:
- 2 weeks hotlapping as a division sorting method (or less, you get the point)
What do you think would change? The hotlappers would be at the front, despite some of them driving less constantly in the race and falling back (maybe! but not necessarily).
And how fair would the points overlap be with those drivers who qualified let's say mid pool and are taken out by somebody, fall back to the last position and will get less points than the guy in the next pool (despite being 0.5 quicker per lap and having qualified 15 positions ahead), who had nobody who crashed him out, he just had a boring race hotlapping through 50 laps.
But as a last word, I would suggest adding an extra 10 minutes to qualification to have a greater chance for everybody to do at least 1 clean lap.
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
This is precisely what I'm talking about. A less patient person would stop reading there.
Re: your interaction with rcpilot... you weren't clear as to whether you were using the, uhm, "royal you" or the traditional direct address "you," and you were in fact directly addressing him with at least one of those posts, so it's not hard to see how he misunderstood you (I'm not entirely convinced he did, really). The fact that you were entirely on the attack certainly didn't help matters, either.
Conversely, All that this comes down to is that you think someone on a higher server deserves to score more points than someone they're not even racing against.
It cuts both ways. Yes, the drivers on the higher servers were faster in qualifying, but the point remains that there are plenty of drivers who are quick enough to compete with server 1 drivers in race conditions, but who get relegated to server 2 for one reason or another. We all know of certain drivers who are brilliant at hotlapping and entirely lose their heads in race conditions. (I'm not saying that this has yet occurred in BOTT, but the potential is there.) There has to be some element of chance and luck (good or bad) in any qualifying system, but I feel it's imbalanced right now in BOTT.
Furthermore, as others have mentioned, 20 minutes is an awfully short time in which to lay down a brilliant qualifying lap, amidst the confusion and carnage of a 32 car server. I would support increasing the qual time to 30 or 45 or even 60 minutes (like a real life league) in order to give everyone a fairer shot at getting their best lap in. If that were done I'd personally be much more comfortable with the non-overlapping points system, though I still think it should be considered. (Again, a small overlap.)
Umm... let's see, how many people are 'whining' in here, and how many of them are 'whining' about potential poor qualifying screwing race results. Now read your own statement.
No, I don't favor and afaik dwb doesn't favor being able to beat someone in potentially unfair circumstances. My original suggestion was actually based on something like a multi-server endurance tracker, but I kind of like what dwb was thinking too with 3 servers with equal points. Being unable to fight for as many points as everyone else in the league with field gaps that are so tight is just ridiculous. If this was like an average league where the gaps had widened out a fair bit by the time you got to server 2 I wouldn't think anything of it. But, it's not. Instead you're stuck in situations where depending on an arbitrary split point you're limited to a certain number of positions. In a league where the gaps are tight enough that you could easily fight for 5-10 positions above you if you're any good in a race. And IMO, there are a lot more people out there that can pull a fast lap out of the hat than there are that can run fast laps consistently, why should they get the advantage? Qualifying as I know it is supposed to decide your grid position, not the number of points you can get.
I can see how it would be crap to qualify 1st on server 2 but that's just life IMO, bad luck to you, try harder next time. I did find it a bit weird though that this argument comes up after a race in which the qualifying setup is the exact one that is being used in the race.
I can see the argument coming around in like the TBO or the GTR rounds where the qualifying setup will be differnt from the race setup where you will most likely find slow people in the qualifying being better than those above them in the race.
I think 30 minuits is enough to set a decent lap, but I have no experience in the 32 people qualifying sessions and I can imagine it being pretty crap, so i'm assuming that the people who were in server 1 for the first race all qualify in server 1. This obviously will be better for everybody because you really shouldn't be driving with someone 5 seconds off the pace. (Hopefully) Also, why not split it in two? It will take a little longer but if you just split each server in 2 and half 12 cars doing half an hour of qualifying, then have the next 12 do it afterwords.
It seems a little silly to me but if the traffic spoils most of your laps in 30 minuits then it's most likely going to do the same for an hour long session too.
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??
Simple solution:
NO MULTIPLE SERVERS Qualify for the ONE server or sit out the events. Damn trying to be the biggest racing series.
Complex solution:
Have multiple series (servers) that once you start you stay with that server till the END and top finishers (thru 6, 8, 10, ??) have weight added (equalizer) based on finishing order from the previous event. This will keep the sand baggers from gaining too much advantage.
"I never said my suggestion was the perfect solution or in any way hinted it".
I know what you meant by it - however you are using too big of a contrast to make a point = manipulating. Same goes for the "stupid children who can't read" and regarding ppl who are whining, whoever they may be.
I didn't suggest nor did I promote that - I said I preferred it and made no effort into convincing anyone to implement it.
I didn't think it would have been necessary to end the sentence with "but thats too big of a change and therefor late now".
Yes, I would - unless something was way off. But in his case, I started before not after.
I originally said "you can have "poor" quali, but be consistent at racing, while another driver could have "good" quali time, but do worse during the race".
By poor and good I didn't mean having bad or good day (in that post - later I did as a different argument), but that the times set during qualify session in no way shows how any given driver performs during a race.
You have a great attitude going on - besides, are you even reading the whole thing?
To finish 1st, would have meant that the driver didn't have enough or any incidents that would cost him, he was faster or better racer - ergo he deserves to be rewarded for it.
The driver who finished last, did so because he was slower, lacked the needed skills and/or was involved in incidents. Some incidents can be avoid while other can't.
That's though luck - nothing to do with what's fair. You can have a single server race with a driver dominating, who then makes a solo mistake during the very end - or gets punted by someone else - both could cost him the win, maybe much more. You don't go "aww.. thats sad, we'll give him the win anyways" - if it was a solo mistake, then he apparently didn't deserve the win after all. If he got punted then the rules, in a sense, try to make up for it be handing out penalty to the offending driver - however the dominating driver would still have had to suffer from it.
So ya - Top X from lower pool deserves more than lower X from upper pool even though the races were different.
I brought it up way before the race - I've also been here, keeping a sober tone. Why are you getting all upset by it?
It wouldn't have to do anything with the fact that you came up with the system, and you might be a bit too touchy about me and other pointing finger as it? Grow out of it if thats the case (which I do believe it is tbh).
Yawn - his qualify was better than his performance. And it wasn't because he was being slowed down by other drivers.
And you should really stop using "crap" etc. - you just might be offending more people than you think.
It takes more to finish first, than it does to finish last - and the overlap is supposed to reflect that by awarding the winner + X number of drivers in the lower pools.
If you have so much against this, then why does the system already have 1 position overlap? Was that a mistake? Where did it come from and why? It's already there, but I'm suggesting a bigger (not huge) overlap - how big/small it should being isn't being discussed at all.
Edit: You can't use F1 as an example - We have "3" races, not one - currently there are places left for more drivers (unless its been limited beforehand?) - that example would be valid if BOTT received more applications than there is room for.
If BOTT had true divisions, then the example would be valid too - but someone from pool #2 in race 1 could end up in pool #1 in race 2 - the league is partially mixed already so why not have a smaller overlap for the races?
The quali handicaps too much because of this - it's not about earning the right - it would have been if it was a single day event or there were divisions, but all scores will be added for the final standings. You just need to qualify for pool #1 during the season to be ensured a place in top 32, while the overlap.. as mentioned, would spice things up a bit.
And I agree with you - I don't mind the system as it is, and never did - Except that I had as n issue with the drivers on the upper edge of the lower pool being cut that badly regarding points - the subject about exactly how many overlaps there should be haven't been touched because apparently the system as it is, is better - it must be, since there isn't room for any change?
The change wouldn't have been a disaster, but rather promote drivers who simply are not fast enough for upper pool, in any race, to aim towards a better overall finish. That way they get to mingle in, and not being cut off so harshly,like they do now.
THAT's a comment taken out of context, I removed 3 lines that had nothing to do with the paragraph I quoted, and your comment was specifically in a reply to me considering I was the only person to post since your previous post and you brought up points that only I was discussing at that time. Now, if you truly didn't mean it for me, then maybe you should THINK and READ what you post before you click submit. 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? Plus the comment was mostly because I thought you were confused from reading your post and wanted to clarify my specific stance on the issue. (Namely, I don't think it'll ever be a problem for me again and here's why, but I'd still like to discuss changes.)
Maybe you just don't have that firm of a grasp on the english language. Because to use the infinitive you it needs to be set up first, just saying 'your', 'you' over and over in this context construes a specific person. Now, maybe adding a people or a someone in there would help out.
Yes, and as far as I can tell, you're not one of them. (Note that this is the first personal 'attack' I've made and how harsh it was) This WAS a discussion before you walked in. I thought I had left cussing flame wars to other forums, not the LFS forums. And on that point, if you start coming up with the need to actually discuss the situation, I'll talk with you, but I'm not replying to anything you say to this or in the future of this discussion if you continue in this manner. Arguing on the internet is well, you probably know the rest. Discussions on the other hand, I don't mind.
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.
Guys, this is supposed to be a discussion on the points system. Has anyone decided on any of these points or not?
1. Is qualifying going to be extended?
I hope it does as server 2 where I was in was very busy, 32 racers, 20 mins, with each lap taking quite a long time. Why couldn't we just have say an hour, then if people only wanted to do a quick qualy they could, plus it would also break up the amount of racers on the track at the same time. At the end of qualy, as it is SO important in the current points system, the times would give a better indication of each racers actual pace.... Also, this would help show any server/password problems and leave enough time to fix them and still put in a decent lap and start the race on time.
I know myself that as the race was getting pushed further and further back it was causing at least one driver to leave. Probs more than that...
I would recommend just starting qualy earlier then the race could start at the same time. Plus people who couldn't get on till the current qualy time/schedule could still join as normal for 20 mins and hopefully have a much clearer track than previously...
2. Points Overlap.
After reading everyones posts this whole issue has gone right off topic so I have no idea anymore what the consensus is. My personal opinion is a small overlap (say top 3/bottom 3) would be a good idea. This would help the server above and below IMO. If I was for example 4th from bottom in server 2 I'd be fighting hard to stay out of bottom 3 and also if I was 4th in Server 3, It would make the battle to get 3rd more interesting.
Also, if qualy was as in my point 1 then this IMO would make the overall points system fairer in my eyes as it would be based more on my skill than the lottery of finding a gap in 20 mins...
i think the point system is fine. without overlapping points a faster racer cant cheat his way into a lower grid, win there and still get more points than being last one on higher server.
i dont think its a good idea to make the qualy longer, 20 mins is definitly enough, would be nice though to use more servers.