| Author |
Topic: Mistake in game rules |
29 replies
|
|
|
|
#1 posted Feb 9th 2008, 08:00:02
|
Quote
|
There is a little but maybe important bug on the 'game rules' page:
7.1
Any manager, who finishes in the top 4, but with a negative balance, will not be promoted, and instead the next highest manager with a positive balance will be promoted in their place.
As far as I remember, it was decided to change that into
'Any manager, who finishes in the top 4, but with a negative balance, will be relegated as well.'
This was, to avoid some people pretending to go into negative balance to stay at their league to earn more money.
If I am mistaken, please close... it is still early in the morning here.
|
|
|
|
If you had read the next sentence you would see that:
Any manager who finishes with a negative balance shall be relegated to the division below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Feb 9th 2008, 08:48:36
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Feb 9th 2008, 09:05:21
|
Quote
|
|
It was as simple as that, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 posted Mar 16th 2010, 21:37:17
|
Quote
|
"1.5 Points system
We use the official Formula 1 point scoring system where managers in positions 1-8 get 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 points respectively."
Official F1 point scoring system is different now :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 posted Mar 16th 2010, 21:41:13
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Lukas Jonaitis @ March 16th 2010,21:37:17 )
1.5 Points system
We use point scoring system where managers in positions 1-8 get 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 points respectively."
Fixed :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Mar 16th 2010, 21:42:40
|
Quote
|
|
1.5 Points system
We use point scoring system where managers in positions 1-8 get 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 points respectively."
Fixed now :)
Hmm well i dont want them to change anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Mar 16th 2010, 21:43:38
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Lukas Jonaitis @ March 16th 2010,21:37:17 )
We use the official old Formula 1 point scoring system where managers in positions 1-8 get 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 points respectively."
Even better fix. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 posted Mar 23rd 2010, 13:02:09
|
Quote
|
|
Rules got fixed. Sounds familiar. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Apr 13th 2017, 12:39:33
|
Quote
|
Sorry for bringing this up… this is a minor, minor thing... but anyway.
Section 1.1 of the Game Rules still mentions 625 Rookie groups while now they are 200.
It´s just a Find “625” Replace by “200” operation. Or adding something more generic or a side note stating that the number of Rookie groups can be adjusted to adapt to the number of new players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Apr 13th 2017, 12:52:16
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Hugo Merlin @ April 13th 2017,12:39:33 ) It´s just a Find “625” Replace by “200” operation. I agree, although I would hope Admins run it passed James first, It might cause him trauma if they just went ahead and changed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 posted Apr 13th 2017, 13:24:24
|
Quote
|
|
I don't think he'll mind Jon, assuming they only change it once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 posted Apr 13th 2017, 13:25:49
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Miel Soeterbroek @ April 13th 2017,13:24:24 ) I don't think he'll mind Jon, assuming they only change it once. :D
|
|
|
|
|
On "Promotion & Relegation" wiki page still sais "top 4" instead of "top 3" for promoters
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted May 18th 2018, 11:19:45
|
Quote
|
|
The highest level of the game is Elite, below this are 5 Master groups, followed by 25 Pro groups, 125 Amateur groups and 625 Rookie groups.
Isn't that a little outdated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 posted May 18th 2018, 11:34:59
|
Quote
|
|
At least the divisions stay still strong :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 posted May 18th 2018, 11:57:25
|
Quote
|
7.1 Promotion/Relegation
"The bottom 15 managers from each group (excluding Rookie) will be relegated to the level below."
Let's take my group as an example:
/gb/Standings.asp?Group=Amateur%20-%2023
Managers on positions 31 to 40 are marked in red, and I thought these managers would, if these positions are held, be relegated. This would mean bottom 10 managers and not bottom 15 as specified in the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 posted May 18th 2018, 17:11:19
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Markus Björklund @ May 18th 2018,11:57:25 ) 7.1 Promotion/Relegation
"The bottom 15 managers from each group (excluding Rookie) will be relegated to the level below."
Let's take my group as an example:
/gb/Standings.asp?Group=Amateur%20-%2023
Managers on positions 31 to 40 are marked in red, and I thought these managers would, if these positions are held, be relegated. This would mean bottom 10 managers and not bottom 15 as specified in the rules.
It looks like rules'text was not updated ;)
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been mentioned already.... somewhere else , But I believe that a slight correction is need with regards to rule 1.1 ?
/gb/GPRORules.asp#11-format
snippet here :-
"The highest level of the game is Elite, below this are 5 Master groups, followed by 25 Pro groups, 125 Amateur groups and 625 Rookie groups. "
I suggest perhaps the following amendment:- 93 - 125 Amateur Groups and 186 - 625 Rookie groups. The number of groups will vary as they are dependent on the number of active players.
|
|
|
|
- Ones again, One Heretic Question from an Abnormal Greek:
...why the laps of Jyllands-Ringen are 136*2,3 = 312,8 Km
and Not 134.??? ...134*2,3=308,2 >305 as demand the Normality.!!!
- Thanks a lot for the Dislikes that you will run to put.!!!
:)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ August 7th 2018,08:14:41 ) - Ones again, One Heretic Question from an Abnormal Greek:
...why the laps of Jyllands-Ringen are 136*2,3 = 312,8 Km
and Not 134.??? ...134*2,3=308,2 >305 as demand the Normality.!!!
- Thanks a lot for the Dislikes that you will run to put.!!!
:)
Plenty of existing races that are as long or longer
Avus Germany 312.3
Jyllands-Ringen Denmark 312.8
Slovakiaring Slovakia 313.9
Brands Hatch United Kingdom 315.5
Rafaela Oval Argentina 317.3
Indianapolis Oval United States 804.4
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the devious of the game will indeed stay strong
|
|
|
|
|
|
- My Old Friend Graham, I Know it.!!!
:)
...that's not Answering to my Question.
...I suppose that we correct the situation when we have the Opportunity, not continue the distort.-
...Already he have that problem after Brands Hatch is again on Calendar of F1...
...Inti Oval is a separate case.
:)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ August 7th 2018,10:11:03 ) - My Old Friend Graham, I Know it.!!!
...that no Answering to my Question.
:)
Graham is saying that races dont have to conform to 305km.
|
|
|
|
Probably not worth a new thread, but could the following passage in game rules, please, be corrected or made more precise?
"The bottom 15 managers from each group (excluding Rookie) will be relegated to the level below."
I am back to Amateur after quite a while and just today saw in the standings, that the relegation zone in Amateur is just 7 managers wide instead of 15 managers as it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Armbruster @ January 6th 2019,17:11:36 ) Probably not worth a new thread, but could the following passage in game rules, please, be corrected or made more precise?
"The bottom 15 managers from each group (excluding Rookie) will be relegated to the level below."
I am back to Amateur after quite a while and just today saw in the standings, that the relegation zone in Amateur is just 7 managers wide instead of 15 managers as it used to be.
I am sorry to have to bring this issue up again.
But the rules haven't been corrected. Moreover, last season even the relegation zone in season standings was marked incorrectly in Amateur. For instance, in Amateur 4 with no additional promotions and noone in negatives, P33 didn't relegate, while the relegation zone in season standings starts at P33.
So could we, please, get a correction of the game rules and a correct marking of the relegation zone in season standings? For people trying to train up Rookie drivers in Amateur this information can be essential.
Thank you in advance! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 posted Apr 21st 2019, 19:17:26
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Michael Armbruster @ April 21st 2019,17:57:27 ) But the rules haven't been corrected. Moreover, last season even the relegation zone in season standings was marked incorrectly in Amateur. For instance, in Amateur 4 with no additional promotions and noone in negatives, P33 didn't relegate, while the relegation zone in season standings starts at P33.
The rules are as correct as they can be having in mind the unstable structure of the pyramid. We will not update them every season when we add/remove groups. That's why the following is clearly stated in the rules:
Note that in case when the groups structure of the game is under ongoing expansion or reduction, a different number of managers may be promoted or relegated in the different classes of the game.
As for P33 in your example, from what I see he was saved by an inactive manager above him.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification, Vlad! :)
I didn't look for inactive managers in Amateur 4.
So I understand that the relegation zone is correctly marked in season standings and starts at P33 and if there is no manager in negatives above P33 and no inactive manager above P33, then P33 will be relegated. Correct?
P.S. Regarding the game rules, I understand that you don't want to change them too often. So what about just refering to the marking of the relegation zone in season standings, which you keep up-to-date, instead of making the absolute statement of the bottom 15 managers in each group except Rookie relegating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Apr 23rd 2019, 21:04:09
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Michael Armbruster @ April 22nd 2019,15:32:55 ) So I understand that the relegation zone is correctly marked in season standings and starts at P33 and if there is no manager in negatives above P33 and no inactive manager above P33, then P33 will be relegated. Correct?
Yes.
Quote ( Michael Armbruster @ April 22nd 2019,15:32:55 ) So what about just refering to the marking of the relegation zone in season standings, which you keep up-to-date, instead of making the absolute statement of the bottom 15 managers in each group except Rookie relegating?
I've added the reference. However I will not remove the absolute statement since it is still correct if the groups pyramid was in proper shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted Apr 25th 2019, 17:56:34
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Vladimir Alexandrov @ April 23rd 2019,21:04:09 ) I've added the reference. However I will not remove the absolute statement since it is still correct if the groups pyramid was in proper shape.
That's great! Thank you! :)
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
