| Autori |
Temë: Testing with different type of tyres |
26 përgjigje
|
|
|
|
#1 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 18:36:27
|
Citim
|
|
Why not allow amateur and above use different type of tyres during free testing? It will allow us to make a better decision when we get promoted in PRO. The supplier can charge us the cost for 1 race when we decided to use them instead of pipirelli.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 18:39:28 (Së fundi edituar 23 Mars 2017, 18:40:43 nga Josh Clark)
|
Citim
|
|
I actually think that's a really good idea. Although I think there should be limited opportunities, or at least with limited manufacturers. Paying the tyre's cost on top of testing costs seems a fair trade. Obviously not available before the first race though. Or rather, not available until a tyre manufacturer has been chosen for the season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 18:42:26
|
Citim
|
|
I like the idea, but I'd actually leave it for free. Hell, I'd also make the testing free in amateur. The car wear alone is already very bad bang for bucks in amateur.
|
|
|
|
The problem with this is the testing standings would be affected by folks using different tires.
Though that could be overcome by not counting "tire testing" laps towards testing standings.
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ March 23rd 2017,18:42:26 ) Hell, I'd also make the testing free in amateur. .
No need to make ama cheaper lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:10:31
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Daniel Douglas @ March 23rd 2017,18:57:47 ) No need to make ama cheaper lol
Whereas amateur is cheap, testing in amateur sucks. Otherwise more people would test. Actually, way more than in other league, considering money flows super easily there. However, that's not the case. Testing in amateur is scarce precisely because testing is a money sink there. In order to perform well there you don't test, you buy parts, which put people who want to reduce their untrainables handicap in a big disadvantage and I, for one, don't want that kind of message for newbies: if you test, you'll be ragdolled by car wasters, but if you don't, you won't go to far in the game. Especially because even if testing was free, it is, performance/money wise, a very bad investment in amateur.
If it was for changing the amateur economy structure (which I think is necessary to prevent the money bleed in pro) the solution is different, such as the recently proposed change in taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:19:31
|
Citim
|
I disagree with this idea.
It would burn stages, when the essence of the game is precisely to discover the potential of the car and the pilot within each category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:25:39
|
Citim
|
|
I don't agree that there is no testing in Amateur. You test if you need to do it and you know why you need it. Considering the economics in Amateur, testing is not that much expensive. From a certain point of view, there is a limited return of the investment compared to higher categories. But depending on what you are trying to achieve through testing, this may not be the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:26:15
|
Citim
|
Do testing standings truly matter? Maybe for the first race.
I agree with this idea. Once we get to pro we would need to know values of each tyre which would take X amount of seasons for each supplier.
Combine that with the probability we will be relegated. Your looking at 10 seasons of testing suppliers. Saves time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:27:41
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Joel Bradley @ March 23rd 2017,19:26:15 ) Do testing standings truly matter?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:28:14
|
Citim
|
|
But that's precisely my issue. Testing is maybe worth just due to special circumstances, whereas in the high leagues testing is good almost always. Hence why the average amateur manager doesn't test but a bit higher than twice per season (old data, but I don't think that has changed much) despite the huge money availability. As a consequence, a newcomer has a very steep hill to climb to take his untrainables to competitive levels. Which is what I don't like. I've been there and it sucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 19:31:52
|
Citim
|
|
To the suggestion, you have almost 1240 managers testing non-Pipirelli suppliers every season. Follow them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 20:06:53
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ March 23rd 2017,19:28:14 ) But that's precisely my issue. Testing is maybe worth just due to special circumstances, whereas in the high leagues testing is good almost always. Hence why the average amateur manager doesn't test but a bit higher than twice per season (old data, but I don't think that has changed much) despite the huge money availability. As a consequence, a newcomer has a very steep hill to climb to take his untrainables to competitive levels. Which is what I don't like. I've been there and it sucked.
I've been around since S14 and still my untrainables aren't maxed out. Nor are those of some old managers more successful than me. Why should we make easy for new managers to close that gap? We have all been rookies at the beginning...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 20:08:48
|
Citim
|
Any man who's surname translates into "big house" must know what he's talking about.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 20:08:56
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 23rd 2017,20:06:53 ) I've been around since S14 and still my untrainables aren't maxed out. Nor are those of some old managers more successful than me. Why should we make easy for new managers to close that gap? We have all been rookies at the beginning...
On the other hand, you never were 90 points per area behind of those who have best untrainables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 20:43:55 (Së fundi edituar 23 Mars 2017, 20:52:30 nga Hugo Merlin)
|
Citim
|
People tend to compare their untrainables with the max possible value. I don't. I compare with what I think my competitors from my group might have. Based for example in number of races (how long are they playing the game) and the number of testings and test laps done since they started playing.
Of course this isn't accurate and I don't check manager by manager (only the more experienced) but I could have a pretty good guess. Except if you reached Elite quite fast I would say the difference could be only 10 / 20 points comparing with the average and based on the level you are.
I won't argue if 10 / 20 points have a big impact or not. But for sure it is completely different than 90 points which is the usual argument against the untrainables.
It would be interesting to know what is the average untrainable per level: Amateur, Pro, Master so that we could benchmark and decide if we should stay a couple more seasons in the same level trying to increase them. I left Elite out of this on purpose because I suspect someone would argue that it is too much information, since it's only 1 group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 20:59:37
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 23rd 2017,20:06:53 ) I've been around since S14 and still my untrainables aren't maxed out. Nor are those of some old managers more successful than me. Why should we make easy for new managers to close that gap? We have all been rookies at the beginning...
I've been around since S36. A new manager starts with 66 experience/90 TS disadvantage vs. me. I don't want that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 21:27:01
|
Citim
|
|
It'd be nice if they were transferrable, like supporter credits. I'd gladly take some of yours to level the field Edwin ;)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ March 23rd 2017,20:08:56 ) On the other hand, you never were 90 points per area behind of those who have best untrainables.
Did something change since Season 1 about testing and non trainables? If not, I guess your allegation is purely theoretical, as I don't know and you don't know the staff skills of all the managers I raced against in all these seasons. And, if nothing changed, theoretically I could well be 90 points behind in staff tech skill. Surely not in staff experience, but at the same time I started quite late in investing in my staff non trainables, so in the meantime the initial gap could have even increased.
Quote ( Hugo Merlin @ March 23rd 2017,20:43:55 ) People tend to compare their untrainables with the max possible value. I don't. I compare with what I think my competitors from my group might have. Based for example in number of races (how long are they playing the game) and the number of testings and test laps done since they started playing.
Of course this isn't accurate and I don't check manager by manager (only the more experienced) but I could have a pretty good guess. Except if you reached Elite quite fast I would say the difference could be only 10 / 20 points comparing with the average and based on the level you are.
I won't argue if 10 / 20 points have a big impact or not. But for sure it is completely different than 90 points which is the usual argument against the untrainables.
It would be interesting to know what is the average untrainable per level: Amateur, Pro, Master so that we could benchmark and decide if we should stay a couple more seasons in the same level trying to increase them. I left Elite out of this on purpose because I suspect someone would argue that it is too much information, since it's only 1 group.
Exactly. For a new manager the gap is maximum only against a few managers. I know very old managers with staff skills which are far from being maxed out. And of course the gap a new rookie / amateur has with an established Elite manager should not bother him too much and in any case he can close it considerably along his path to Elite.
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ March 23rd 2017,20:59:37 ) I've been around since S36. A new manager starts with 66 experience/90 TS disadvantage vs. me. I don't want that.
You can always reset to Rookie to cancel that gap :P
In any case, the staff tech skill gap can be closed completely in just a few seasons, so I would not say a new manager has a big problem with it. Staff experience needs much more time. But I can tell you that at the beginning of S30, after 15 full seasons, my gap to the best (theoretically) was 80 exp / 66 tech. Today is even "easier" to close the gap as a new manager understands quickly that he need to work on his non trainables. When I started instead the "experienced" managers were telling noobs that it was completely useless and a complete waste of money to test in Amateur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 22:58:07
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 23rd 2017,22:46:16 ) Did something change since Season 1 about testing and non trainables? If not, I guess your allegation is purely theoretical, as I don't know and you don't know the staff skills of all the managers I raced against in all these seasons. And, if nothing changed, theoretically I could well be 90 points behind in staff tech skill. Surely not in staff experience, but at the same time I started quite late in investing in my staff non trainables, so in the meantime the initial gap could have even increased.
I truly doubt anyone in the first seasons spent money to invest into tech skill. And exp is more important anyway I think. So at max you were about half of that behind. What happened after you started was your fault.
|
|
|
|
Bravo. And do you think that managers with more seasons behind had started to test immediately and intensively to maximize non trainables? Do you think that most managers have max possible non trainables their race count would allow?
Yes, it was my fault, but it was you saying that I never raced with a 90 exp gap. I did. And I fixed it. It took a long time and still I'm not done.
It was my fault, but no one gave me staff experience as a gift. A lot of the knowledge available nowadays to new managers was not available to old managers when they were noobs. So, basically, they are now in the same boat we were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 Postuar 23 Mars 2017, 23:52:33
|
Citim
|
Ok, I should have said that you wouldn't have needed to. But current newbies need to. Ok, it will take the same time from them (or even less since untrainables are nowadays mentioned so often) to get to level than it took from us (I started 2 seasons before you), but meanwhile they are more disadvantaged than we were. Ok, in Pro and below it's not that big a deal, but it starts to feel in Master and is usually crucial at Elite.
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 23rd 2017,23:17:45 ) Do you think that most managers have max possible non trainables their race count would allow?
No. So you were even less behind when you started.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but not sure new managers are much more behind the majority of the managers. Really, I seen very old managers with very low non trainables. Obviously it is unlikely to be the case for many established Elite managers, but new managers have a considerable time ahead before they have to bother about them :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 Postuar 24 Mars 2017, 18:11:44
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 23rd 2017,22:46:16 ) Today is even "easier" to close the gap as a new manager understands quickly that he need to work on his non trainables.
How come easier when you have a bigger gap to begin with? Also, the facts are: i. tyre suppliers didn't exist back then, so more money available to do testing, ii. Lower CT were the norm, even CT <40 was quite normal in master, which, again, means more money availability and iii. the peers had similar untrainables, so they weren't handicapped vs. the field.
Regardless what you do, you can't maximize them in less than 4 years and the theoretical limit isn't even important either when real data shows otherwise. In practical terms, it takes way more than that. My testing average is more than 2.5 times that of the average manager, and even then it will take me from May 2013 to ~March 2018 to maximize them. An average manager who never demotes to rookie will take ~13 years instead. Plus the data is skewed, since the average testing is increased (albeit slightly) by Elite and Master managers whose untrainables, in many cases, are already max, and this doesn't include the untrainables decline each season due to demoters to rookie or people leaving the game.
In any case, this isn't even a discussion about how hard it is to increase the untrainables. This is more about a standing towards veterancy based advantages. I don't like them. Many others do. Since those are probably the majority, it is likely no change will ever be done even if Vlad wanted to. There is a business to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 Postuar 24 Mars 2017, 18:41:56
|
Citim
|
|
I don't agree but I don't have time right now to properly reply. I will try later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 Postuar 24 Mars 2017, 23:51:54
|
Citim
|
Ok, here we are.
It comes easier because today there is a lot of knowledge available to new managers. We didn't had that amount of know how available when we started and a lot of that was crap.
We have been told (many of us and many times) "Don't test until you are in Pro! Testing in Amateur is a waste of money!". While those who understood faster than others the importance of non-trainable were increasing the gap with others. After many seasons in the game I was still far from the top as a new manager is today. I spent money and time to improve that. There is a cap to non-trainables, so soon or later everyone can close the gap totally.
As I tried to explain, you evaluate your gap against the max possible skills, but I bet that apart some established Elite managers, there are a relatively low number of managers with maxed non-trainables.
Staff tech skill can be maxed out in less than 1.5 years or about 5 seasons.
Staff exp takes much longer, I agree. But while you increase it you close the gap and after 1.5 years your exp gap to the max is reduced to about 60 points. Still a lot? Maybe, but again you don't have to consider that all other managers have maxed out non-trainables. You may well have built a gap with other managers who did not improved non-trainables.
As you pointed out, there are old managers resetting to rookie or quitting the game, so the average gap with more experienced managers decrease.
It takes the time it takes. When you realize you must improve them and you focus on it, it takes exactly what it takes. If it takes longer is because you decide so.
An average manager may need more time, but tell me way an average manager should have an advantage towards a smart one.
In any case, there is plenty of money at the moment in Ama enabling a manager to invest in the improvement of non-trainables. So, it's not a money problem.
I often see suggestions aimed at rendering things easier for the new managers, but I don't understand why we should. It was hard for us... Much harder than now, imho. It was harder when FOBY was really observed and you had really to find out things by yourself. How many new managers today spend time to crack formulas for fuel, tyres, car wear, car setup? I bet very few.
So, I don't agree we should render things easier for new manager to the detriment of more experienced ones. In the end, old managers keep playing since years, often supporting GPRO. New managers come and go. There are several possible reasons for this. One may be that the game is too difficult? I personally disagree. Some may say that the game is beautiful exactly because it is difficult and this contributed to GPRO' success in the years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 Postuar 25 Mars 2017, 03:53:22
|
Citim
|
A possible alternative "solution" could be found in the area of untrainables affecting newer managers.
What about a "soft cap" in place for each level.... A cap where if say you are in pro your untrainables can continue to increase but they no longer give you an additional benefit until you reach master.
For example:
Elite: 100
Master: 80
Pro: 60
Ama: 40
Now when joe "my untrainables are maxed" goes to pro, he is no longer gaining a huge benefit over those who are not maxed.
It would also give newer managers a target to shoot for and possibly increase testing amount. I say increase because everyone wants to be "maxed" out or higher for their level before going to the next, so newer managers could possibly see that 40 as a goal to shoot for.
Untrainables could still increase even after the "soft cap" was reached. So if Bob's untrainables are at 45 and he is in Ama... he could still increase them. There just wouldn't be any additional benefit for him until he promoted to pro... where his "soft cap" would raise to 60.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 Postuar 25 Mars 2017, 05:33:07
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ March 24th 2017,18:11:44 ) In any case, this isn't even a discussion about how hard it is to increase the untrainables. This is more about a standing towards veterancy based advantages. I don't like them. Many others do.
Quote ( Alessandro Casagrande @ March 24th 2017,18:41:56 ) I don't agree but I don't have time right now to properly reply. I will try later.
But then you came and completely agreed with me: we have different standings about veterancy based advantages. You support them and I don't.
That, unless your disagreement was about how hard it is to maximize untrainables, but, again, I doubt you can disagree with full facts: it takes theoretically a lot, in reality it takes a lot lot more, it is easier when your competition doesn't have a head start, it is easier when more money is available (old times of CT 40 in master and no different tyre suppliers), and, especially, it is easier to maximize stuff when you have been around for 10 years than when you have been playing since last month. You basically said old timers had it harder with formulas and stuff, but that doesn't have to do with untrainables at all. If anything, being a step ahead in formula development in the early days was also a huge advantage for a handful of people, whereas nowadays a savy newcomer doesn't have that kind of advantage (still in a better position than an average newcomer, but not that much).
Also, it's better to keep it realistic. I know you can take your staff experience to 40 in 1.5 years in the same way a poor person can maybe success if he works his ass real hard. But in reality, the average amateur manager, the league where you state untrainables development is such a piece of cake, don't get more than 0.8-1 experience points per season (data from around 5 seasons ago, so it may be a little bit more nowadays, but I doubt by much). Naturally, I'm not stating an average manager should have an advantage above a smart one. That would be foolish. I'm stating an average newbie manager should have a more equal footing vs. an average veteran one.
Now, again some sweet facts, from very smart, not average managers, who were recently in amateur:
Joao Monteiro: average 0.15 testings per race in amateur
Rimantas Sagatas: average 0.53 testings per race in amateur
Zdenek Hladik: average 0.11 testings per race in amateur
So these top managers didn't deem it worth to test more than average 0.28 testings per race in amateur DESPITE the fact testing is way more worth for them than for a regular Joe (due to the untrainables already being maximized to begin with), this average was heavily skewed up by Rimantas' heavy testing and still an amateur would take 76 seasons to maximize his staff experience with that kind of testing frequency (193 seasons -40 years- at Zdenek's ratio and 40 seasons -8 years- at the superb Rimantas' ratio). So, yeah.
|
|
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
