| Autori |
Temë: GPRO Points System-Will it change? |
2971 përgjigje
|
|
|
|
Can't argue with that,pirelli really shoud go, bout my money well I'm going according to plan, will have around 30mil after promo and a driver to keep me in amateur till I develop him more, you will ask how will these money come, well I got some smoking races after this one and about my old pro league can't really remember wat was it I can't even remeber what I ate today TBH but that relegation got locked in my head.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Finn Shaw-McIver @ June 18th 2011,23:54:06 ) I'm reposting here because I think the only fair thing to do is have the top 10 positions scoring points, and I don't mean F1 points.
12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Is a good points system.
The top 8 system is not fair at all. There is people from the previous season who are ready to promote (there's normally about 6 people attempting that), then there's people who relegate from the level above, and quite often keep their driver, then there's midfield runners who have a decent pace. There's one retaining season I have had, where I would have been in 4 more point scoring positions with this 10 position scoring system. That is because I was consistent, and was not purposely just using loads of risks to retain. The problem with that, is that other people do high risks for 1 race, and score higher than you have all season. If we have a new points system, it will stop this to some extent, it won't completely stop it, but say for instance... 1 person finishes 10th every race of the season. Under the current system they would get 0 points, even though they have a bigger chance of staying in the group for many seasons, and eventually promoting. With a new points system, they would get 17 points, and jump probably all of the one-race point scorers.
There is a bigger opportunity for the consistent people to progress on from those positions, whereas people who push for once race are likely to spend all their money and eventually relegate.
A teammate of ours ended up in the relegation spots yesterday, just because someone high risked and won the last race. She would have scored 9 points in the season instead of 3 (using the points system I suggested), as she had 4 10th places. That would have moved her infront of another teammate actually, as they are in the same group, and he high risked for a race. A new points system wouldn't stop high riskers, but it would reward the consistent ones and maybe put them ahead.
this has nothing to so with F1, it is just about what is fair. I have often seen consistent people relegated, when they would have retained if 10 people could score. Post your views, but I personally don't understand why people are against this. It is helping the people who have the greatest chance of getting further in the game.
|
|
|
|
The only respectable points system ever was only for Top 6:
10-6-4-3-2-1
I hate orgy of points, every point has to be deserved and a win need more than 2 points on the second place, Imho
|
|
|
|
As mentioned earlier
It won't change a thing, standings won't change a lot and maybe a couple that relegated would not and some retainers would relegate, but the effect is the same.
Couple of seasons I got promoted to Pro by accident and I knew I was not prepared, even with some P9's I knew I would fail (car, staff, money, etc) I relegated even though I did my best to reatain, did not complain that I was pushed out by OBP's they did a better job than me.
If we are looking to give points to everybody then this is not the game for you.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Finn Shaw-McIver @ February 9th 2016,18:09:12 ) Quote ( Finn Shaw-McIver @ June 18th 2011,23:54:06 )
I'm reposting here because I think the only fair thing to do is have the top 10 positions scoring points, and I don't mean F1 points.
12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Is a good points system.
The top 8 system is not fair at all. There is people from the previous season who are ready to promote (there's normally about 6 people attempting that), then there's people who relegate from the level above, and quite often keep their driver, then there's midfield runners who have a decent pace. There's one retaining season I have had, where I would have been in 4 more point scoring positions with this 10 position scoring system. That is because I was consistent, and was not purposely just using loads of risks to retain. The problem with that, is that other people do high risks for 1 race, and score higher than you have all season. If we have a new points system, it will stop this to some extent, it won't completely stop it, but say for instance... 1 person finishes 10th every race of the season. Under the current system they would get 0 points, even though they have a bigger chance of staying in the group for many seasons, and eventually promoting. With a new points system, they would get 17 points, and jump probably all of the one-race point scorers.
There is a bigger opportunity for the consistent people to progress on from those positions, whereas people who push for once race are likely to spend all their money and eventually relegate.
A teammate of ours ended up in the relegation spots yesterday, just because someone high risked and won the last race. She would have scored 9 points in the season instead of 3 (using the points system I suggested), as she had 4 10th places. That would have moved her infront of another teammate actually, as they are in the same group, and he high risked for a race. A new points system wouldn't stop high riskers, but it would reward the consistent ones and maybe put them ahead.
this has nothing to so with F1, it is just about what is fair. I have often seen consistent people relegated, when they would have retained if 10 people could score. Post your views, but I personally don't understand why people are against this. It is helping the people who have the greatest chance of getting further in the game. THIS IS PERFECT I cant see anyone counter this argument
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ February 9th 2016,15:40:06 ) The downside to more points for a win (some of, off the top of my head)
* Getting a random becomes more costly in terms of points if you had been leading the race, but ended up 8th or 9th because of a puncture (for example).
This isn't true. In absolute terms, yes. But in relative terms, no. Actually, the system proposed by Jukka reflects that:
Current:
1st place: 10 points
8th place: 1 point
9th place: 0 points
Jukka's:
1st place: 100 points
8th place: 20 points
9th place: 10 points
With the current system, the random would produce 1/10 or zero the points you get by winning. With Jukka's system you would get 1/5 or 1/10. Obviously, the absolute difference is higher, but that would be equivalent to say a 100-80-60-50-40-30-20-10 (which is exactly the same as now, but 10 fold) is more unfair than the current one. If anything, a more granulated scoring system is less drastic with randoms, besides DNF ones (and the latter only if the granularity is so high that most places give points, which isn't a good system in my opinion).
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ February 9th 2016,15:40:06 ) * The Gap between the leading car and non-scorers is widened between himself and the rest of the field.
Same as before. The gap is increased in absolute terms, not in relative terms, but, after all, what you want from a scoring system is to produce relative differences that reflect the general performance. Absolute differences don't matter at all.
I think the scoring system wasn't a big deal when we had 6 tyre compounds. Increasing the number of compounds produced a situation that I find undesirable: plenty of people can retain even if their situation is hopeless anyways. Your package must be stupidly bad if you can't retain with Contis or BY in Pro and Master, for example. Yet any single retention spot occupied by somebody in a hopeless situation that picks one of those super specialized tyres is one less place for somebody who was probably more prepared.
I'm not a fan of OBR strategies, but I understand them as a possibility. But just that, a possibility, not a complete short term success unless you are extremely bad. Because honestly, picking Contis isn't any strategic master piece that requires brain and planning. Yet that alone is a close to full retention guarantee. When there are around 20 dunnos and around 5 contis in a group, the dunnos guy require to defeat at least another 12 guys with the same compound to get a puny point in a race. Contis, well, hot race, type CT 100 in the box and there you have it, at least 4 points and that if you were the worst one of the conti guys. Retention without a sweating. Bad long term? Yes, most likely. But short term, extremely succesful and every single one with such strategies is forcing 1 most likely better prepared guy to demote.
Quote ( Gino Zernani @ February 9th 2016,17:46:28 ) TBH I was thinking the new points system wouldnt have been so different respect the old one, so I did a fast recalculation about elite last season's standing... and found some interesting data. No great changes at the top nor at the bottom but in the middle there would be some differences.
Thanks for the work, but I don't think Elite is the best place to analyze the situation. Especially since currently many people lpick BR there, so OBP tyres aren't as useful as they used to be (Contis aren't king anymore in hot weather and BY aren't king anymore in wet). Actually, I think that's the reason Elite managers switched to BR: previously you could be better than many people but Conti and BY guys would still defeat you here and there. By picking BR, they rule no matter what.
It's master and pro where the OBP tyres produce high changes and it would be nice to see a similar analysis performed in those leagues.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stelian Monev @ February 9th 2016,18:32:53 ) THIS IS PERFECT I cant see anyone counter this argument
No it isn't
It would have benefited his teammate, but since any change would be at the start of the season OBP's would be accommodate to it, and the result would be the same.
Again it loks perfect because it solved the issue (and would have solved mine a couple of seasons ago) but as any kind of vermin, OBP's will evolve
|
|
|
|
Since I was the other teammate in that situation, I'll set the record straight. It was not OBP, but I did plan to push a little at Indy Oval(which was the first race there) as many people were talking about smoking out because of the high wear. I believe I used 10 more CT than I had been, and that coupled with all the smokers gave me a nice result.
If Sion ever looks in here anymore, I bet he had another stroke when he saw this thread again.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ February 9th 2016,17:21:00 ) Quote ( Stelian Monev @ February 9th 2016,17:17:41 )
I certanly think it would be usefull to have a way to stop scoring a few points keep you safe fron falling down
Someone has to though.
A better suggestion was kind of already made elsewhere by Jukka Sireni, which would be;
100-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Obviously it'd look weird, but old records can be maintained by multiplying by 10, and at the same time low positiions rewarded.
The man is a GPRO genius :)
Not that I'd support it really...to me it would be daft to give points to so many players. 18th place scoring a point? I mean...really?
Is 17 16th place finishes really marginally better than one 5th placed finish?
The consistency argument is a nonstarter. For me, consistently not good enough is not as good as actually able yo produce when needed.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( William Marzi @ February 9th 2016,18:13:30 ) The only respectable points system ever was only for Top 6:10-6-4-3-2-1I hate orgy of points, every point has to be deserved and a win need more than 2 points on the second place, Imho
I like this, but I'm old school when it comes to F1. What, you mean this isn't F1?
How about double points for the last race? That would be funny.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ February 9th 2016,19:07:00 ) I think the scoring system wasn't a big deal when we had 6 tyre compounds. Increasing the number of compounds produced a situation that I find undesirable: plenty of people can retain even if their situation is hopeless anyways. Your package must be stupidly bad if you can't retain with Contis or BY in Pro and Master, for example. Yet any single retention spot occupied by somebody in a hopeless situation that picks one of those super specialized tyres is one less place for somebody who was probably more prepared.
I'm not a fan of OBR strategies, but I understand them as a possibility. But just that, a possibility, not a complete short term success unless you are extremely bad. Because honestly, picking Contis isn't any strategic master piece that requires brain and planning. Yet that alone is a close to full retention guarantee. When there are around 20 dunnos and around 5 contis in a group, the dunnos guy require to defeat at least another 12 guys with the same compound to get a puny point in a race. Contis, well, hot race, type CT 100 in the box and there you have it, at least 4 points and that if you were the worst one of the conti guys. Retention without a sweating. Bad long term? Yes, most likely. But short term, extremely succesful and every single one with such strategies is forcing 1 most likely better prepared guy to demote.
Sounds a lot like "Sour Grapes" to me Edwin, bet you wished now that you had picked either Yoko's or Conti's when you had the chance ?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Andrew Galica @ February 10th 2016,02:54:24 ) Sounds a lot like "Sour Grapes" to me Edwin, bet you wished now that you had picked either Yoko's or Conti's when you had the chance ?
No. Not at all. I wouldn't touch Contis with a ten foot pole. Those tyres suck. Yokos, maybe. Not a big fan of those, tho. I think bang for bucks Dunnos are better. But Yokos don't have any place in this conversation anyways, because they aren't OBP tyres.
Instead, I invite you to check with your own situation the utility of Contis: 31st in money balance, dead last in car level and most likely poor sponsor situation with 20th average place in the season. If that's worth a retention spot for you, well, enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ February 10th 2016,04:31:30 ) Quote ( Andrew Galica @ February 10th 2016,02:54:24 )
Sounds a lot like "Sour Grapes" to me Edwin, bet you wished now that you had picked either Yoko's or Conti's when you had the chance ?
No. Not at all. I wouldn't touch Contis with a ten foot pole. Those tyres suck. Yokos, maybe. Not a big fan of those, tho. I think bang for bucks Dunnos are better. But they don't have any place in this conversation anyways, because they aren't OBP tyres.
Instead, I invite you to check with your own situation the utility of Contis: 31st in money balance, dead last in car level and most likely poor sponsor situation with 20th average place in the season. If that's worth a retention spot for you, well, enjoy.
That is correct Edwin, crap car level , driver with very low OA and still in training mode, low staff , and one new sponsor no money ..and yet two First Places on contis with my pathetic situation :).
As to your perceived perception regarding Tyre compounds and their value , I am sorry but I would have to disagree with your assessment.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Andrew Galica @ February 10th 2016,04:59:02 ) That is correct Edwin, crap car level , driver with very low OA and still in training mode, low staff , and one new sponsor no money ..and yet two First Places on contis
Which is precisely my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Points system should change simply to recognise Keeney's superiority; he actually won a race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2684 Postuar 13 Shkurt 2016, 18:34:00 (Së fundi edituar 13 Shkurt 2016, 18:34:19 nga Jon Day)
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ February 13th 2016,09:57:10 ) Points system should change simply to recognise Keeney's superiority; he actually won a race. Well at least you noticed!
|
|
|
|
|
I was spying on someone that was watching that race. So it was an accident.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ February 13th 2016,18:36:12 ) I was spying on someone that was watching that race. So it was an accident :D
|
|
|
|
i think especially in these times where some rookie groups can barely field 8 managers as it is. have a top 8 point system is a little silly. i think in Elite where there is always 35+ Managers race after race the top 8 is far more effective. if we switched it to the current point system we'd be starting to reward Mediocrity to a silly extent and i dont think this game needs something like that.
My suggestion is to give rookie an entirely different scoring system. in the long run im not sure how it would negatively affect anything, and it will atleast limit the amount of drivers who finish dead last in there group and come away with 2 points.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Darian Vincent @ February 13th 2016,19:10:33 ) i think especially in these times where some rookie groups can barely field 8 managers as it is. ...
My suggestion is to give rookie an entirely different scoring system. in the long run im not sure how it would negatively affect anything, and it will atleast limit the amount of drivers who finish dead last in there group and come away with 2 points. I guess there's 13 or more managers in my rookie group in every race. I'm perfectly satisfied with current point system.
I see no reason for changing point system. I just see the reason to put inactive users to fire as soon as possible (and replacing them with new).
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rastislav Padysak @ February 13th 2016,20:31:30 ) Quote ( Darian Vincent @ February 13th 2016,19:10:33 )i think especially in these times where some rookie groups can barely field 8 managers as it is. ...
My suggestion is to give rookie an entirely different scoring system. in the long run im not sure how it would negatively affect anything, and it will atleast limit the amount of drivers who finish dead last in there group and come away with 2 points. I guess there's 13 or more managers in my rookie group in every race. I'm perfectly satisfied with current point system.
I see no reason for changing point system. I just see the reason to put inactive users to fire as soon as possible (and replacing them with new).
problem with that is a lot of times there are more inactive players than there are players to fill the room. my Group has had 18 managers complete atleast 1 race. 5 of those have been only 1 race.
not yet this season has a race had more than 12 managers competing and there are plenty of rookie groups that are worse. and if im to be honest. if you want points you should have to beat out atleast half of the other managers youre competing against.
obviously an overhauling of the points system is an extreme measure to take. but maybe GPRO needs to look into shrinking the amount of rookie groups yet again. the game isnt currently in a period where 350 Groups is remotely needed.
|
|
|
|
|
#findingsolutionsforproblemsthatdontexist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE POINTS PLEASE!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ April 14th 2016,15:49:33 ) Why though Luka?
read that other forum post (read it beter) and you know why.
|
|
|
|
But others won't. If you want to bring a discussion about the points system other than that's been discussed you'll have to go in detail rather than an informative post shouting MORE POINTS PLEASE.
Trust me I've been there a million times.
Why do you want more Points? If it's just to be in line with F1 it's a pretty weak point:-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2695 Postuar 14 Prill 2016, 16:24:10 (Së fundi edituar 14 Prill 2016, 16:28:07 nga Max Watson)
|
Citim
|
His suggestion is that battling for points is more exciting than battling for positions, and therefore we should alter the points system to award points to 9th- and 10th-placed finishers.
However, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, doing such a thing has no benefit whatsoever. All you do by inflating the number of points positions is generate complaints from (say) the manager who regularly finishes 11th rather than the one who regularly finishes 9th. For the same reason, such a system would not make things 'fairer' or necessarily give greater rewards to consistent finishers. It also would not eliminate the viability of OBP strategies (if this is something we want to do).
In short, it would be a lot of fuss and bother in return for no concrete improvement in gameplay or enjoyment of same for the vast majority. Pretty... pointless.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Max Watson @ April 14th 2016,16:24:10 ) the manager who regularly finishes 11th
BTW, his average position is 11th :) lol :D
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ February 9th 2016,15:32:50 ) The points system needs changing. I'll await my popup ; -)
So, Keano....still feel this way? :p
|
|
|
|
|
well it does matter. it matters alot fore 70% of the gameplayers. more battle`s, more fun. if it doesn`t matters why do they changed it IRL F1?? Its time to change.( after 11 years)
|
|
|
|
I've said all along points should be awarded to the top either 25 managers managers in a race or from 1st to 39th place. That would cut out OBP. Its a some change. However with FTs and that a lot of manager simply any devote enough time to the game they need to make OBP a viable strategy. I personally don't like it.
Some of the strategies available to managers are actually negative strategies. However they work. How an account can actually make quite a lot of money while smoking out 14 races is frustrating to say the least.
I'd always encourage managers to plan and manage their accounts.
You can pretty much reach elite if you negate testing and investing in staff/ facilities. Using new parts more often can easily get you to Elite if you have your sponsors and driver in the right position.
I honestly don't think Elite should be an option to any manager unless they address and invest in every aspect of the game. Currently we have many managers who can reach elite with not investing in staff/ facilities or testing.
However I'm going away from the points system somewhat. :-( Apologies!
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
