Forum topic poll
Do you think this is a good Suggestion/request/idea?
Sign in to vote or view the poll results
|
Author |
Topic: Increased Team Spots. |
44 replies
|
|
|
#31 posted Jun 16th 2009, 15:18:43
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kevin De Wilde @ June 16th 2009,15:03:00 )
That is just as discriminating as any other restriction. I had 5 races under my belt when I created my team. It was created to group ambitious newcomers, exactly because other teams were too silent. And from day one we were a well organised team that shared data, set-ups, strategies, etc. Kevin, I would say that you're the exception, rather than the rule. :)
Which is basically the problem. Too many 'bad' teams out there and when someone joins them, they become a little disenchanted.
|
|
|
|
#32 posted Jun 16th 2009, 15:31:31
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kevin De Wilde @ June 16th 2009,15:03:00 )
That is just as discriminating as any other restriction. I had 5 races under my belt when I created my team. It was created to group ambitious newcomers, exactly because other teams were too silent. And from day one we were a well organised team that shared data, set-ups, strategies, etc.
Why not add age, or IQ, or EQ as a requirement while we're at it? [/sarcasm] You'll always have badly managed teams, no matter who's allowed to create them.
Here here! Quoted for truth!
The money needed to create a team and the money needed to join a team should be enough to sort out the biggest idiots. No other restrictions/requirements are needed.
On-topic:
The ugly monster is rearing his head once again. Although seamingly nothing is broken, we should still fix it.
There is no need to discrimante incomplete teams even further (besides not having 10 scoring managers) and the idea of granting extra perks to supporters will only mean that teams will be limited to the happy few. Why is it such a fetish to have full teams? Why would the number of teams be limited? Is it because people are getting tired of scrolling too much to find their team?
I am very sorry you have 11 people interested to join your team but the limit has been set at 10 and I don't see why this should change.
Suppose said rule is changed and you will be able to have 20 people on your team, what if 21 people are interested in joining your team?
If someone can make a very good point as to why the current rules are 'broken' I see no reason to change anything.
|
|
|
|
#33 posted Jun 16th 2009, 15:45:11
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,15:31:31 )
The money needed to create a team and the money needed to join a team should be enough to sort out the biggest idiots.
But generally it isnt. Managers (specially newly promoted Amateurs) seem to think that if they create their own team then all will be great, when the majority of them are just throwing 5Mill straight down the plughole.
Why are there so many managers looking for teams, and at the same time, so many new teams cropping up with lots of spaces unfilled.
The problem (in my opinion) is that managers want to be in a team as they feel it will help them get further in the game, but instead of joining with others that feel the same, they jump straight into starting their own team. A little looking around first would do alot of them no harm.
Managers try to join a team as soon as they join the game, and when they dont get picked they just start up a team as soon as they hit Amateur, thinking that they will still be rejected by other teams. But that probably wouldnt be the case.
When a new rookie joins and has done a couple of races, many teams wont let then join, the simple reason being that those managers havent 'proved' that they are prepared to stick with the game. But by the time they have promoted, they have usually shown that sticking ability and woudl be more likely accepted into more teams.
No, the top teams probably still wont let you join, but to use a football analogy, only the absolute 'best' get to play for the very top teams, and only totally amazing young prospects will get selected before they have proven themselves. And it the same here, for every place that becomes available at a Fastline, or Martini, there will be many many applications, and usually only one of those will be accepted, and someone with some history with the game will have an automatic (usually) advantage over someone with just a season behind them.
Back on topic a little more, and teams should stick at being (at most) 10 managers, and no more, if you want more, then create second teams (or sister teams or whatever).
Those teams with only a few members should just keep at it, and grow over time, maybe even consider merging with another small team, as it will probably make both of your teams better.
|
|
|
|
#34 posted Jun 16th 2009, 16:01:54
|
Quote
|
the poll answer says it all no!!
|
|
|
|
#35 posted Jun 16th 2009, 16:26:11
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Laila Britāle @ June 16th 2009,15:18:08 )
I agree with Adam..i was in bad team too in rookie and ama. And i can confirm that being in team gave to me NOTHING. So i think that people should reach pro first to create the team.As about main question, i would like to say big and clear NO. More over i think that 10 is too much :)
That's the worst possible idea. Infact I'd struggle to find a worse team idea if i tried.
Lets think about your idea Laila. You want to reduce by around 70% the number of players that get create teams & then over the top of this reduce the number of players in a team. What this would mean is that less then 20% of players would be able to be in a team.
How on earth would newer players ever be expected to ever get guidance on this game? And before you say the forum I'd say FOBY FOBY FOBY. _ __ _ _ _ _ _
I'm not for or against restricting team creation to pro & higher. However if that happens then you need to increase the max number of players in a team to about 30.
|
|
|
|
#36 posted Jun 16th 2009, 16:30:44
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ June 16th 2009,15:45:11 )
But generally it isnt. Managers (specially newly promoted Amateurs) seem to think that if they create their own team then all will be great, when the majority of them are just throwing 5Mill straight down the plughole.
Some rookies seem to think that throwing a lot of money at their car before the first race is a good idea. Will we be making that impossible as well?
I know which problem this is supposed to adress, but I remain convinced that by limiting the possibilities in the lower catagories will have a negative effect on the game overall.
As has been pointed out before. Suppose you need to be a pro/amateur to start a team. Your team wouldn't even exist...
Also I see a lot of hearsay stories and assumptions of rookies joining the 'wrong' team and losing interest in the game. But people promoting seem to have gotten over that 'obstacle' and still managed to get into amateur/pro/master after enough testing and were able to learn from their mistakes. Is there really that much difference with people choosing the wrong pilot (like I did last season) for example? Except that the wrong pilot costs you more to set straight.
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ June 16th 2009,15:45:11 )
When a new rookie joins and has done a couple of races, many teams wont let then join, the simple reason being that those managers havent 'proved' that they are prepared to stick with the game. But by the time they have promoted, they have usually shown that sticking ability and woudl be more likely accepted into more teams.
So you agree joining a team will become a lot more difficult? I suppose you can also agree that if you can join the game via a friend who has enough experience will earn you an edge (quick acceptance in a team) that is barred for others (they can't get accepted and can't start a team of like minded rookies to pull their resources together).
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ June 16th 2009,15:45:11 )
No, the top teams probably still wont let you join, but to use a football analogy, only the absolute 'best' get to play for the very top teams, and only totally amazing young prospects will get selected before they have proven themselves. And it the same here, for every place that becomes available at a Fastline, or Martini, there will be many many applications, and usually only one of those will be accepted, and someone with some history with the game will have an automatic (usually) advantage over someone with just a season behind them.
Funny you use the football analogy because besides a professional circuit every town in my country with >500 people has their own football team. And some of them have quite an extensive history without rising to the top. Those, by the way, are the people who give all people the chance to play the game in a fun way and eventually the best get transferred to 'top teams'. So in the long term it will be healthier for the top teams to have a vast pool of recreative teams to 'select' from.
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ June 16th 2009,15:45:11 )
and someone with some history with the game will have an automatic (usually) advantage over someone with just a season behind them.
And this is exactly something you want to avoid at all costs. Suppose the game grows to full maturity with all possible spots taken by F1-fans worldwide. Would you be motivated by the fact that you would need at least 4-5 seasons to have a shot at getting acces to a team? Experience in the game has quite enough advantages already.
|
|
|
|
#37 posted Jun 16th 2009, 16:38:42
|
Quote
|
I voted no, but I did so defiantly.
|
|
|
|
#38 posted Jun 16th 2009, 16:54:54
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
I know which problem this is supposed to adress, but I remain convinced that by limiting the possibilities in the lower catagories will have a negative effect on the game overall.
We are far off topic here, as this thread is meant to be about increasing the number of places in a team, and not to do with team creation, but I will reply anyway.
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
So you agree joining a team will become a lot more difficult?
I am saying that to join a good team is already difficult, and is nigh on impossible for a totally new manager, and is still not easy for someone with a season behind them.
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
I suppose you can also agree that if you can join the game via a friend who has enough experience will earn you an edge (quick acceptance in a team) that is barred for others (they can't get accepted and can't start a team of like minded rookies to pull their resources together).
I totally agree yes, a manager who has someone giving them hints & tips (provided they listen to them) will have an advantage. But that has next to nothing to do with teams. If you are in a good team (of which there are few (comparitively speaking) you have an advantage over if you are in a 'less good' team (of which there are significantly more).
As it is already stated Good Team >> No Team >> Bad Team
There is no right to be in a good team, you have to earn that place.
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
Funny you use the football analogy because besides a professional circuit every town in my country with >500 people has their own football team. And some of them have quite an extensive history without rising to the top. Those, by the way, are the people who give all people the chance to play the game in a fun way and eventually the best get transferred to 'top teams'. So in the long term it will be healthier for the top teams to have a vast pool of recreative teams to 'select' from.
Ok, I wonder if you are just missing my point. Some people complain that they never get accepted into teams, when all they try to do is apply to the top 20 teams in the game.
I could get into my village football team quite easily, but I doubt that Real Madrid will want to sign me this summer.
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
And this is exactly something you want to avoid at all costs.
Again, No. Lets take one of the top teams, I will use Martini as an example purely because Toni wont mind :p
Martini lose a member through whatever reason, and advertise for a new person. they narrow it down to 2 people, who meet the criteria they are after for forum posting, attitude to the game etc, but one of them has done 100 races, and the other has done 20. Every time the edge will go with the experience, even a smaller team would go with the experience most of the time.
New managers have no automatic right to be in a good experienced successful team, that has to be earned, through results and whatever else.
As you yourself posted...
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
the people who give all people the chance to play the game in a fun way and eventually the best get transferred to 'top teams'.
There will always be more teams than are strictly needed in this game and there is no guide to forming a team, and at present, it is possible to start your own team having run only a few races (although now the pyramid is complete that is less likely.
I am personally against the idea of restricting team creation to Pro and above, as there are many many able Amateurs who should be allowed to create a team, but by maybe limiting it slightly so that you need a little experience before you start a team, it might help managers who otherwise jump in and start a team which they later regret.
and finally...
Quote ( Mark Lambrechts @ June 16th 2009,16:30:44 )
Some rookies seem to think that throwing a lot of money at their car before the first race is a good idea. Will we be making that impossible as well?
the newbie guide basically tells managers that that is not a good way to go, and that maintaining your finances is the most important part of GPRO. If they fail to heed that advice, that is there own problem, and they will struggle to even make it to Amateur to create a team.
|
|
|
|
#39 posted Jun 16th 2009, 17:08:25
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Richard Harris @ June 16th 2009,10:28:30 )
5 more for non supporter teams and 10 for supporter teams?
NO! 10 is plenty, go find me a 10 car team in real life! ... supporters should have less. not more then non supporters, if stuff was to change...
if you make supporter teams bigger, then its unfair to every one else who isn't as good!
|
|
|
|
#40 posted Jun 16th 2009, 18:26:19
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Chris Williams @ June 16th 2009,10:38:26 )
No reason why you can't start multiple teams as an alliance?
The Brazilian teams did it, OTF did it, Phantom are still doing it, amongst others...
which is why we've got about 40 gazillion teams at the moment!
|
|
|
|
#41 posted Jun 16th 2009, 18:27:42
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Paul Bryant @ June 16th 2009,18:26:19 )
which is why we've got about 40 gazillion teams at the moment!
The 40 gazillions teams still can't accommodate all the managers in the game, though.
|
|
|
On the other hand people who will firstly join a bad team will definitely appreciate the good team more and will seek for this kind of teams in the future (avoiding doing the same mistake again :)
|
|
|
|
|
#43 posted Jun 16th 2009, 18:45:16
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ June 16th 2009,15:45:11 )
The problem (in my opinion) is that managers want to be in a team as they feel it will help them get further in the game, but instead of joining with others that feel the same, they jump straight into starting their own team. A little looking around first would do alot of them no harm.
Managers try to join a team as soon as they join the game, and when they dont get picked they just start up a team as soon as they hit Amateur, thinking that they will still be rejected by other teams. But that probably wouldnt be the case.
When a new rookie joins and has done a couple of races, many teams wont let then join, the simple reason being that those managers havent 'proved' that they are prepared to stick with the game. But by the time they have promoted, they have usually shown that sticking ability and woudl be more likely accepted into more teams.
No, the top teams probably still wont let you join, but to use a football analogy, only the absolute 'best' get to play for the very top teams, and only totally amazing young prospects will get selected before they have proven themselves. And it the same here, for every place that becomes available at a Fastline, or Martini, there will be many many applications, and usually only one of those will be accepted, and someone with some history with the game will have an automatic (usually) advantage over someone with just a season behind them.
Gordan, I agree with this 100%. Just one question: If people with less than 10 races under their belt are spending their own money to start a team, which has a lot of chances of going flop, why are you bothered about it?
Starting/Joining a team is like any other decision a manager takes in this game. If he makes the right choice, he will gain something from it, if he doesn't, he will suffer for it, as it should be because this is, at the end of the day, a managerial game. Why are you so bothered about the decisions they take?
|
|
|
|
#44 posted Jun 16th 2009, 19:16:04
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Toni Metsänkylä @ June 16th 2009,18:27:42 )
The 40 gazillions teams still can't accommodate all the managers in the game, though.
Very true but is that a problem should everyone be in a team?
|
|
|
|
#45 posted Jun 16th 2009, 20:00:38
|
Quote
|
I like the idea more of having associated teams in a family sort of arrangement... kind of like RBR/Toro Rosso. Then you can increase people's participation with the carrot of promotion to the top team.
|
|
|