- 15,856
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
you have to be in a team. Hence the name Board Challenge.
As far as i know any wheel or controller is allowed.
As far as i know any wheel or controller is allowed.
Draft of Proposed BC5 rules - please read and comment
- Thread starter Duke
- 283 comments
- 14,459 views
- Status
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
You don't need to read 9 pages. You just need to read the rules, which are in the first post of this thread.BROCKY
@ Rico: We've had other folks with computer troubles as well, so the submission deadline has been extended to 8 August. Good luck!
I everyone,
We were working on our proposal, and we just note that it may have a difference of HP beetween the same car in the different version of the game in the arcad mode. So after the proposal are selecte i suggest we take a good look to each races to make sur it's eaqual for everyone.
Later.
We were working on our proposal, and we just note that it may have a difference of HP beetween the same car in the different version of the game in the arcad mode. So after the proposal are selecte i suggest we take a good look to each races to make sur it's eaqual for everyone.
Later.
- 954
- Melbourne, FL
- GTX_NQX
Sounds like an case where this rule could be applied...
Even though the Ford Focus Rally car is available in both versions, the 5 hp advantage in the PAL model essentially makes it a different car, slightly different, but different none-the-less.
Even though the Ford Focus Rally car is available in both versions, the 5 hp advantage in the PAL model essentially makes it a different car, slightly different, but different none-the-less.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
On a related note:
Managers - Please edit your entry in the Team Sign Ups thread to include information about what format replays you will be able to verify: PAL, NTSC, NTSC-J, etc. I will need to know this so I can set up the verification ring. Thanks!
Managers - Please edit your entry in the Team Sign Ups thread to include information about what format replays you will be able to verify: PAL, NTSC, NTSC-J, etc. I will need to know this so I can set up the verification ring. Thanks!
- 134
RicolambI have an idea, in such races...it'll be asked both replays, the ghost one, and the whole session one
easy no
Yep cheers Rico.. I think Mistral suggested the same thing on the page before.. (but it's Hard to keep up mate
). For now I've told the team that anything goes on the lead up to the start line in hot laps (as was more or less decided) but if it's ammended I'll put em straight before it all begins Replay info added to sign up thread 👍 .
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
One last-minute question Duke, and I apologize if it's been covered, we're just trying to narrow our one scenario decision down:
For the 9th Scenario (Arcade Rally, Arcade Rally Car), does it have to be an officially-marked "Rally Car" (ex. Subaru Impreza Rally Car, Peugeot 206 Rally Car), or can it be any car that can compete in Rally races (say, the street versions of either those cars).
Thanks in advance
For the 9th Scenario (Arcade Rally, Arcade Rally Car), does it have to be an officially-marked "Rally Car" (ex. Subaru Impreza Rally Car, Peugeot 206 Rally Car), or can it be any car that can compete in Rally races (say, the street versions of either those cars).
Thanks in advance
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
It was answered a few weeks ago, but to clarify again, I would like the 1.4.9 scenario to be an actual WRC-style car. There is the other dirt/snow scenario available for non-rally car slippery action.
Sorry for the delay in response.
Sorry for the delay in response.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Yes, that's correct - any purpose-built race car that was originally intended to see rally action.
I've received nearly all the submittals and I have most of them formatted into shape. A few last-minute teams are coming in today. I'll try to wait for the stragglers and get each round organized. Look for the polls to open on 09 August some time.
I've received nearly all the submittals and I have most of them formatted into shape. A few last-minute teams are coming in today. I'll try to wait for the stragglers and get each round organized. Look for the polls to open on 09 August some time.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
OK! The proposals are in and compiled. It's been a long couple of days, but the polls are open.
Please have team members decide among themselves which proposals to vote for, and then have the Team Manager cast the vote. EACH TEAM GETS ONE VOTE PER ROUND. Thank you.
I've scheduled the polls to close on 25 August 2005. That leaves a few days for us to make any final changes before the 1 September kickoff. Note that the order in which the rounds are run will be decided at that time so that we can set the "easier" races to the earlier deadlines.
[edit]
Due to concerns about viewing the results before voting have an effect on the outcome, I have closed all the polls at this time. I will reopen them at a later date for Team Managers to cast their teams' vote.
Please have team members decide among themselves which proposals to vote for, and then have the Team Manager cast the vote. EACH TEAM GETS ONE VOTE PER ROUND. Thank you.
I've scheduled the polls to close on 25 August 2005. That leaves a few days for us to make any final changes before the 1 September kickoff. Note that the order in which the rounds are run will be decided at that time so that we can set the "easier" races to the earlier deadlines.
[edit]
Due to concerns about viewing the results before voting have an effect on the outcome, I have closed all the polls at this time. I will reopen them at a later date for Team Managers to cast their teams' vote.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
While editing the Proposals, it was apparent to me that a number of the races rely on our earlier discussion that we will need an honor system for this BC competition, since there is no MK's program for GT4. There also seems little point in running yet another GT3 board comp.
So the question has been raised about trustworthiness and potential for abuse, particularly in the Arcade proposals.
To help avoid this, should we make all Arcade races include Full Quick Tune and AI strength at +9? The AI sometimes puts the same field for both +9 and +10 strength, so specifying +9 will help level the playing field. Tires are of course another question when wear is not on.
Thoughts? We touched on this a month ago, but it may be time to decide for real now.
So the question has been raised about trustworthiness and potential for abuse, particularly in the Arcade proposals.
To help avoid this, should we make all Arcade races include Full Quick Tune and AI strength at +9? The AI sometimes puts the same field for both +9 and +10 strength, so specifying +9 will help level the playing field. Tires are of course another question when wear is not on.
Thoughts? We touched on this a month ago, but it may be time to decide for real now.
- 934
- eggmann_gtbn
I think we should leave the races the way they were submitted. AI fields can be checked. If someone gets the same AI field for +9 as +10, then it'd be the same eggzact race - no problem. Weight and HP can be (sort of) checked via top speed achieved (and where).
If we alter the setups that the teams have submitted, then we could end up with a lot of problematic AI lineups (assuming each board tested their races to prevent this).
If we alter the setups that the teams have submitted, then we could end up with a lot of problematic AI lineups (assuming each board tested their races to prevent this).
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Just trying to eliminate variables. If you can get the same cars with AI at +9 (but they don't push quite as hard) as you do at +10, it's another small cheater's advantage.Ricolamb
I can't say it will make a big difference, I'm just trying to plug potential holes.
- 134
Hi Ryan / Rico.
Not Dukes fault about the AI. That was me mentioned it about a million pages ago, but never got much feedback. I noticed it occured in Family cup races mainly, and it did make bit a difference. At difficulty level 9 you'd often get the same opponents as level 10, (When you dropped to 8 you'd get a noticably different line up). but like duke says the level 9 opponents didn't push quite as hard, and you could sneak through clean on a particular corner at 9 to some clean air for a better overall time. Unfortunately there's no way to check between difficulty level 9 and 10 via the availible game data.
But I reckon a good veteran eye on the replay could spot it. Whoever draws such a race will be putting quite a few hours on it, and will likely spot if the AI looks a bit lack luster compared to what it should be one notch up the difficulty level. Plus you can always view from any AI car and check speeds. So I'd humbly suggest to leave them as they was proposed, as it seems to be the general concensus so far.
Not Dukes fault about the AI. That was me mentioned it about a million pages ago, but never got much feedback. I noticed it occured in Family cup races mainly, and it did make bit a difference. At difficulty level 9 you'd often get the same opponents as level 10, (When you dropped to 8 you'd get a noticably different line up). but like duke says the level 9 opponents didn't push quite as hard, and you could sneak through clean on a particular corner at 9 to some clean air for a better overall time. Unfortunately there's no way to check between difficulty level 9 and 10 via the availible game data.
But I reckon a good veteran eye on the replay could spot it. Whoever draws such a race will be putting quite a few hours on it, and will likely spot if the AI looks a bit lack luster compared to what it should be one notch up the difficulty level. Plus you can always view from any AI car and check speeds. So I'd humbly suggest to leave them as they was proposed, as it seems to be the general concensus so far.
- 954
- Melbourne, FL
- GTX_NQX
The main problem with checking the "quality" of a driver's run to verify immeasurable issues such as AI strength and Weight used is that top drivers are going to fast regardless of what the expected norm is. If it is a driver who is either unknown, or is known to be a a perrenial midpacker, that would be one thing, but a known top 1% driver would be hard to catch in a cheat.
The good news is that the 1%ers are typically honorable drivers.
While I personally feel that races should eliminate the intangables of AI strength/weight by assuming best case conditions, I'll go with majority ruling on this issue...
The good news is that the 1%ers are typically honorable drivers.
While I personally feel that races should eliminate the intangables of AI strength/weight by assuming best case conditions, I'll go with majority ruling on this issue...
- Status
