Draft of Proposed BC5 rules - please read and comment

[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.

 

[Ricolamb]

hey Duke, I just talked with manu (from GTChallenge)...he's having some problem with his computer (a virus) so he can't send u the proposals within today...he asked if u can give him one more day

thanks a lot

Rico

 

[Duke]

Okay i may be going over something someone has already asked (sorry, i couldnt bare to read posts for 9 pages), but do you have to be in a team, or have a team to enter this comp?? or can people run solo??? If its teams only, do all drivers have to be able to run well, or will the chosen racers possibly be from seperate teams. Are there restrictions to controllers used, whether its GP or wheel??

Any Help appreciated.

You don't need to read 9 pages. You just need to read the rules, which are in the first post of this thread.

@ Rico: We've had other folks with computer troubles as well, so the submission deadline has been extended to 8 August. Good luck!

 

[beru]

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.

 

[Iceman]

What specific car are you talking about?

 

[beru]

Ford Focus rally car, 359 hp for NTCS version, 364 hp for Pal Version.

 

[NoQuarter]

Sounds like an case where this rule could be applied...

1.4.12: Car Selection: ...Proposed cars must be available in all released local versions of the game (NTSC/PAL etc)...

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.

 

[Ricolamb]

H"If we have a hot lap race can we (or anyone else) legally make an illegal wall ride or corner cut before the hot lap begins to give us more pace entering the start/finish straight?

I have thought this before and it seems to be a loop hole in the rules as the hot lap save will not show any infrigements but an advantage could be gained, especially somewhere like Le Sarthe.

I have an idea, in such races...it'll be asked both replays, the ghost one, and the whole session one
easy no

 

[beru]

Question : Can we use the x-ploder to submitte some replay???

Thanks.

 

[Duke]

I don't know what the x-ploder is, unfortunately. I'll have to let someone else make a recommendation.

If it is like an X-port or Max Drive, then I would say yes, as long as the file format for the replay is compatible.

 

[Iceman]

As long as at least one person from another team has one that can verify the replay I'd imagine it would have to be allowed.

 

[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!

 

[Tony Randall]

I 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 👍 .

 

[Mistral]

hey Duke, I just talked with manu (from GTChallenge)...he's having some problem with his computer (a virus)

*Again...*

 

[Duke]

Well, we can't really delay getting the proposals in beyond this weekend. If he can have another member post them, or forward them to one of you for posting, that would help. They will be public knowledge soon enough.

 

[manu]

Hello

Duke I to you be sent the list of the combos of gtc' by private message. Confirm if you received Thanks . Full combos in PAL version. Forgiveness for the delay..

 

[Duke]

I did recieve them, and donn't worry, the deadline was extended to tomorrow, so you're not delaying anything!

 

[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

 

[NoQuarter]

Team GTX's Proposals submitted to Duke via PM.

 

[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.

 

[Mistral]

I guess we can also pick old WRC such as Renault 5 Maxi and and Peugeot 205 T16, eh? I'd like to see the Stratos Rally Car somewhere! I just love it!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Ricolamb]

I think we should just put +20 power and -10 weight, the rest can't be checked in any way...I dunno what's the need to modify IA?

 

[eggmann]

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).

 

[Duke]

I think we should just put +20 power and -10 weight, the rest can't be checked in any way...I dunno what's the need to modify IA?

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.

I can't say it will make a big difference, I'm just trying to plug potential holes.

 

[Tony Randall]

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.

 

[NoQuarter]

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...

 

[Ricolamb]

While I personally feel that races should eliminate the intangables of AI strength/weight by assuming best case conditions

that's what I would choose for...
if we ain't gonna change anything, I just hope ppl will vote only races with best conditions in them...

Rico

btw...how can I get rid of those damn forced avatars??I want my own