|
Undian topik forum
Do we want 3 Different Choices for RISKs on the RACE.???
|
| Pengarang |
Topik: 3 Different Choices for RISKs on the RACE. |
50 balasan
|
|
|
- In the New Age of Driver Energy
...it's Absolutely Necessary to Have the Opportunity to Programing the RISKS of our Driver.!!!
...for Example
1. from Start to lap 20 ...RISKS 0/13/25/25/25
2. from lap 21 lap 40 ...RISKS 13/0/40/40/40
3. from lap 41 to Finish ...RISKS 35/0/70/70/70
- Maybe will test first on Pro - Master - Elite.-
- Good Night to all
...from Beautiful Sithonia/Chalkidiki/Greece.!!!
|
|
|
|
|
#2 dikirim Feb 18 2017, 21:29:56
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ November 11th 2016,21:57:27 ) As was commented on and spread between a few threads, and was also an argument against from many years ago (and one that I probably made myself way back), different risks per stint makes it much harder for new managers to learn how things work.
But now we have variable risks for weather conditions. Now we have driver energy, which can lead to risks changing in the middle of a stint. Having the option of variable risks per stint doesn't mean that you can't use the same risks for every stint.
And while it might not give you great data for calculating wear, being able to use variable risks per stint could be helpful for newbies trying to gain more tyre data in a shorter time.
As such, I don't think it's a bad idea for newbies.
With the addition of driver energy, the ability to have more control over your risks seems to be the natural next step, IMO.
As such, I think it would be a great idea to implement risks per stint.
Could also have used that thread to continue this discussion, and it's probably not the only one on the same or very similar subject.
Please all remember, as it tells you to do before opening a new thread, try and do a search for the suggestion first. :)
|
|
|
|
- Ok I understand the point.!!!
- The Normal for most of you is
...a Robot Driver to make exactly the same thing all the laps.!!!
and lost his Power like a Bunny with Duracell battery.!!!
- And the Abnormal to have Timing Choices.!!!!!!!!!!
...and Save his Energy for the Right moment.!!!!
I am glad to be an ...Abnormal at all...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 dikirim Feb 18 2017, 22:52:02
|
Sebut
|
|
It's a great idea and a logical argument. yes yes and yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 dikirim Feb 21 2017, 14:17:08
|
Sebut
|
|
- It's great idea!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 dikirim Feb 21 2017, 14:34:39
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ February 18th 2017,22:22:21 )
...a Robot Driver to make exactly the same thing all the laps.!!!
and lost his Power like a Bunny with. Duracell battery,!!!
Sorry for my ignorance regarding the actual topic,, but I think the above point is not factually correct because iirc that Bunny with Duracell battery never lost his power till the end. Thankyou ;-)
|
|
|
|
No for me thanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT - Excessive "!!!" broke the page
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 dikirim Feb 21 2017, 14:40:21
|
Sebut
|
1. from Start to lap X
2. from lap X+1 lap Y
3. from lap Y+1 to Finish
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 dikirim Feb 21 2017, 14:40:54
|
Sebut
|
|
If boost work this could definitely work aswell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I can put 9 laps with 100 CT combined with boost the get the max chance for overtaking and fastest lap, and lower CT for rest?
|
|
|
|
- Yes Jukka, why Not.???
...No more Records after New Age of Energy Drivers.!!!
- That of course can Do Everybody, and we have a New Interesting on the Races.!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the logic of specifically three different choices. Why not four or five? Or why not per stint?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ February 21st 2017,14:50:26 ) So I can put 9 laps with 100 CT combined with boost the get the max chance for overtaking and fastest lap, and lower CT for rest?
This is why I am not in favour of the proposal
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ February 21st 2017,15:04:25 ) I don't understand the logic of specifically three different choices. Why not four or five? Or why not per stint?
- Kevin the Idea is the Multi Choice Opportunity to RISKS.!!!
...all the others have Second meaning and the GPRO easy find the Rights.!!!
:)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ February 21st 2017,15:01:13 ) ...No more Records after New Age of Energy Drivers.!!!
???
|
|
|
|
This is a great idea!
I think that can be divided for any part of the race:
Start - 00:30
00:30 - 1h
ecc...
|
|
|
|
This was already discussed in the other thread and as far as I know nobody went with a solution for this:
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ February 21st 2017,14:50:26 ) So I can put 9 laps with 100 CT combined with boost the get the max chance for overtaking and fastest lap, and lower CT for rest?
This is particularly an issue because of the asymmetrical effect of such a strategy. Nowadays you'll always risk wasting energy and car wear by going with high CT but not being at the front after L1. With different risks per section, the issue is worsened, because as long as you are a middle/back of the pack runner, you won't have the luxury of reducing your CT risks after your first stint, something that is completely available and effective for a front of the pack guy.
As long as your tyre and car wear are constant with your CT regardless your actual race pace (you'll use the same tyres and car even if you're 2s slower than your actual pace) this idea is a big no for me. Being at the front already gives big advantages and different risks along the race would only produce even bigger advantages.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ February 21st 2017,15:04:25 ) I don't understand the logic of specifically three different choices. Why not four or five? Or why not per stint?
Than people can complain they made a typo too easily :P
It would make it very complicated imho.....
A slight nuance to try and use a gap during the race, as I expect that is what they want, being blocked early (use low CT) and than when others pit (increase CT), could work.
Race CT: X
Increase CT if in clear air by: 20CT
Clear air could be definined as having a 3s gap in front of you or something.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Roberto Morra @ February 21st 2017,15:29:15 ) Start - 00:30
00:30 - 1h
ecc...
How are you planning? (ELITE time is not known.)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Niels Wolters @ February 21st 2017,15:48:16 ) Clear air could be definined as having a 3s gap in front of you or something.
Clear Track Risks and Very Clear Track Risks? ;-)
Quote ( Niels Wolters @ February 21st 2017,15:48:16 ) and than when others pit (increase CT), could work.
Isn't what the boost laps were invented for?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ February 21st 2017,15:04:25 ) I don't understand the logic of specifically three different choices. Why not four or five? Or why not per stint? Oh Kevin....You just dont understand. Probably down to the fact you retired. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 dikirim Feb 21 2017, 17:12:55 (terakhir disunting Feb 21 2017, 17:28:20 oleh Josh Clark)
|
Sebut
|
I suggested this a while back, and although it got a lot of good responses, there was an outstanding issue of managers being able to use OBP tactics with their risks during races. Which I didn't really see as too much of an issue as that can already happen, but it was a quick shut down for the idea for more experienced managers.
Quote ( Edwin Silva @ February 21st 2017,15:40:31 ) Being at the front already gives big advantages and different risks along the race would only produce even bigger advantages.
I don't see how really.
I did read your post, and I do understand that being first after L1 has advantages, but how would this make it any worse? If you wanted to run higher risks in your first stint, you're forced to used softer start risks. This OBP section can be just as wasted as it can be utilised, like it already is now.
I agree that once in first and going fast, you're very able to control the race. But anyone in the top 5 or so has the chance of doing exactly the same thing.
Conversely, qualifying first, forcing to front, and using low ct for blocking only to pounce in a later stint, is also a viable tactic.
All these are tactics used in racing, all would make for more exciting viewing.
If you really see first place after L1 or blocking as an issue, then OT/DF risks and start risks can be played with a little. This kind of advancement for the game has a lot of pros, and if the cons are made lighter then it would only make the game more exciting.
E: but I do agree with Paul Bright who suggested it replace the boost system, rather than having both.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Lorenzo Bongi @ February 21st 2017,14:36:58 ) No for me thanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT - Excessive "!!!" broke the page
ahahhahahahahahahahaah, Yes too much !!!!!! in a line broke the page, but 100 posts with too much !!!!!! broke the Balls ......
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Josh Clark @ February 21st 2017,17:12:55 ) I did read your post, and I do understand that being first after L1 has advantages, but how would this make it any worse?
Because as it is currently a guy at the front with, let's say, CT 80 for the entire race, has almost no chance of wasting wear/energy for nothing, because odds of being blocked are slim. A guy in the middle or back of the pack doesn't have that luxury. That's the current situation.
With the proposed idea, a guy at the front can put, let's say, CT 80 for the first half and then CT 40 for the second half and he won't be too harmed, if anything, because he created a big gap in the first stint. Hence, he used in average CT 60 for a good result. A middle/back of the pack guy, instead, won't have that luxury. If he does the same, odds are he will be blocked in the first stint and then he will be overtaken by a handful of guys in the second one. Hence, for the same average CT risks, the guy at the front won't lose but maybe a couple of places late in the race, whereas somebody who didn't get to profit from the good risks early in the race will be kicked in the balls later down the road.
Quote ( Josh Clark @ February 21st 2017,17:12:55 ) But anyone in the top 5 or so has the chance of doing exactly the same thing . Conversely, qualifying first, forcing to front, and using low ct for blocking only to pounce in a later stint, is also a viable tactic.
Well, yes. That's why I said frontrunners have an important additional advantage with the proposed idea. Somebody behind can't do that without a big risk of being destroyed when his CT risks are reduced, because he couldn't create a gap when he was going with high CT. This addition could maybe create a couple of possibilities for the frontrunners (although the simple: go fast and create a gap vs. people behind who are struggling in trains is a winner almost always), but not so much for everybody else.
In honestly, I can't find the pros of this proposal to be that many. Not even race excitement, because this doesn't even involve decisions: the critical part of the race is the beginning, hence that's when you want to go fast. In that regards, there isn't any decision involved: the optimal strategy would almost always be going high CT early in the race and then reduce them for the later stints. Naturally, sometimes a post hoc analysis would show a better strategy would have been the opposite (going low risks at the beginning and push at the end), mainly when you were blocked in the first stint and then you had some clear air in the second one. However, that's incidental: most of the times a second gained early in the race is way more useful than a second gained later down the road (the previous example would have seriously backfired if the situation was different: you allowed a huge gap to be created due to your bad pace early in the race and then you were unable to cut the gap, hence you wasted your CT risks for the late part of the race).
|
|
|
|
- After 10 Days the situation has been reversed.!!!
...lets do it even Clear and WIN, the Common Sense.!!!
- Good Day to All of you,
...from Beautiful Sithonia/Chalkidiki/Greece.!!!
|
|
|
|
It is bad idea!!!
There is enough blocking in the race. Why not use 10 laps high risk with boost be in front and rest of the race low CT and 100 def risk.
Same idea that Jukka had so I voted no and i really hope it will never happen!!!
|
|
|
|
Dear Martti,
...exactly the same thing can do Everyone, ...After You.!!!
...so this Argument it's not work.- :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Martti Kaasik @ February 28th 2017,12:30:13 ) It is bad idea!!!
There is enough blocking in the race. Why not use 10 laps high risk with boost be in front and rest of the race low CT and 100 def risk.
Same idea that Jukka had so I voted no and i really hope it will never happen!!!
Then, i use 0 CT all race. And 100 CT per 15 laps (in final) and overtake you in last laps (boost in 9 final laps). Or i use CT 0 in first stint. Then, CT 70 after my pit.
Different risks, open up many possibilities, both to block and to overtake.
(I prefer different risks per stint).
You can use 100 CT in first 10 laps + 9 boost laps, and have a mistake. So, you will not block all people. Or you can get blocked (in the 10 first laps) per people using CT 50. Using ct 100 + boost does not mean that you will overtake many cars (except in very easy overtake race).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 dikirim Feb 28 2017, 22:58:11 (terakhir disunting Feb 28 2017, 23:07:20 oleh Jukka Sireni)
|
Sebut
|
Quote ( Rogerio Mandler @ February 28th 2017,22:43:08 ) Using ct 100 + boost does not mean that you will overtake many cars
Against 50 CT it usually does.
EDIT: I don't know how for example GO is done. but I guess that kind of change would be quite a big change for the database and display.
|
|
English
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
Dansk
Pirate
