JGTC S4 Discussion/Ideas Thread

[ZeratulSG]

What would you all think of a 10 lap qualifying sprint race on RM tires, no wear, and +10 AI on RS tires? Drivers would always run on stock weight and stock (or penalty, still up for discussion) power. Half of normal points, no weight penalty assessed from the results.

When you say "stock power" I assume you mean "base power" as assigned to each car at the start of the season?

(I'll retract the idea of track position advantage from qualifying times becaue it is confusing and unnecessary...)

Still waiting for someone to chime in on my idea about representing qualifying results (whether hotlap or sprint race, doesn't matter) in the race times. Anyone?

PROS:
- Sounds fun
- Fast drivers get a chance to prove on a level playing field what they're capable of at every venue
- Overly burdened fast drivers still have the opportunity to score decent points over a race fortnight
- Allows lighter drivers to still win main races for higher # of points while rewarding faster drivers with a "feelgood biscuit" by podium'ing or winning sprints (even though winning is out of grasp in the main race)
- Doubles the number of "races" that can be won in a series

Your pros tend to favor faster drivers. Given the right car and enough time to actually race, I consider myself a faster driver, however I think we want closer leaderboards by the end of the season rather than broader points splits. You seem quite disturbed by how the weight penalty affected you this season, yet you are sitting atop the GT500 leaderboard. Just something to note

CONS:
- Makes it more difficult for slower drivers to win the championship outright
- Takes more time to qualify (maybe?)
- Not as gratifying to drivers who like the maximum attack mentality of the RSS hotlap competition

Anyone care to add to the above?

The sprint race is a nice idea, and I like the diversity it adds to the race weekend, but I honestly prefer the hotlap qualy format. It's a better format for track testing (which some of us don't have time to do outside of qualy and the race), and it represents the overall fastest driver over a single lap, on a given "race weekend".

Just my 2 cents.

For those who missed it last time, here's my proposal about qualy results affecting race times once again:

"...In RL racing, the only advantage you gain by out-qualifying someone is grid position, which translates into a small margin of time at the start of the race. So, my suggestion would be this: 2nd place in qualy adds 1 sec to their race time (or the race admin does), 3rd place adds 1+1.5 secs (2.5 secs), 4th adds 1+1.5+2 secs (4.5 secs), 5th adds 1+1.5+2+2.5 secs (7 secs), and so on. The reason for the increasing time curve is to simulate "cleaner air" at the front of the grid vs. traffic and bottlenecking near the back, as is typical of a RL race. The pole-sitter gains an extra half-second over 2nd on the grid. This is an over-simplification of the real world of course, but it limits the advantage to something more realistic while still providing SOME extra benefit from a good grid position."

Like it? Hate it? Anyone?

 

[fasj6418]

late to the party also.

i like shig´s idea, we had some sort of a sprint race in appie´s DTM series. it was fun.

about the weight penalty, i didn´t reply earlier because i still can´t think of something that works. in the end, because of drop outs, we have a bunch of fat cars racing against fat cars. in the first rounds you add up a lot of weight, and since drop outs start to happen, in the end, everybody still has some kind of penalty, or at best stock weight.

this system makes it harder for those who get a lot of points in the start of the season. in 3 rounds you are at +10, and you don´t have a competitive car for the following 3 rounds. in the other hand, the driver with -10 can´t take it too much of advantage, because with the drop out, the fat driver is still finishing "right there" with the light one. i don´t know, i just have the feeling that drop outs hurts both drivers with - and + weight.

if we only run GT500, i´m sure we will have at least 10 drivers in the end, and then the current system can work. also, the power restrictor should be for 3 rounds and that´s it. it didn´t work in the end of this season for GT500, because basically we were just 4 or 5 drivers out there, so fat guys would still get a podium.

full grid changes everything. i wouldn´t be able to win consecutive races if the GT500 had a grid filled with all drivers from the start of the season.

another subject that i´m thinking is this: a driver that haven´t played in 4 or 5 rounds can decide the championship. its legal, its in the rules, but i don´t know. i´m thinking if there´s something we can do about this too. for GT500 this season, we have an unique situation in which is a simple equation:

shig finishes ahead of fasj = shig wins
fasj finishes ahead of shig = fasj wins

but last year was not like that, and VTR could have lost his champioship because of part time drivers. no criticize to part timers, i might become one, since i don´t know what will happen with my professional life past december, but still thinking about a solution...

other example: again, this season´s last roung for GT500. i don´t know which pit strategy to choose. because i don´t know if its worth going for the extra point with softer tires. why? because if the 3 drivers from the qualy race, then everybody gets a bonus point. but what if 5 drivers race the last round, and i miss the bonus point racing with harder tires while shig gets one? then he can win based only on that. pretty strange to think about your race strategy thinking on how many will show up... no offense to part timers, i wish i had a solution for this, but... just throwing some ideas to debate...

also, sandbagging and weight penalty. 2 seasons taught me that even with weight penalty, if you have a good strategy, you can make it happen during the race. in the middle of this season, i found myself with little time to race due to finishing my book, and with a lot of weight. that translated into a series of bad results and one shot races. after 4 rounds, i had a light car and more time to play. but was it too late? still don´t know... i don´t think there´s a lot of sandbagging this season because you won´t really lose a lot of weight...

replays... it was nice to have vids in the start of the season... one of the best things we have here, is trust in the others. we race for months, we´ve seen others replays, and i don´t need to see shig´s or casio´s replay to believe their times. i understand zeratul´s situation and i don´t think we should force people to have a working max drive to play here.

anyway, i´ll try to come up with something regarding weight system... but lets keep this JGTC thing going until we can play our championship online for real in GT5... that will be 2009 i guess...

 

[Casio]

I don't mind scraping GT300 either. It does effectively double the amount of people racing against each other. GT300 is slow, boring and over-gripped anyway.

The more people race, the more it negates the sandbagging factor. And it makes it closer.

 

[Tyre King]

As far as replay provision.

I agree that replays cannot be required, because some of the drivers that we all trust just don't have a maxdrive. But we trust them all the same.

What I would like to see is the times being PM'd to Eats (and the backup), just the times.
And then, those drivers who this season have been sending thier replays to Eats anyway, posting them in the thread instead of piling the replay-checking load onto Eats and his PAL replay checker.

Then, we could all check any replay we want/can and then comment if nesc on the cleanliness, not that that would normally be needed. As Eats says, he/they just check that the right tyres are being used and the AI are on the right settings too.
We all generally trust each-other, and after all, who would post a dirty replay, only to have it ripped apart by the others.
or
we could just watch it and learn, if we want to!

This way, it takes some of the load off Eats and makes it easier for him to post the results quicker.
Also,
The net result is the same as what we have been doing all this season, those that can provide a replay do so (in the thread), those that can't don't. We just won't have to start up our e-mail programs and go through the faff of writing,attatching,sending an e-mail.

So it's easier and simpler for us too!

I don't mind scraping GT300 either. It does effectively double the amount of people racing against each other. GT300 is slow, boring and over-gripped anyway.

The more people race, the more it negates the sandbagging factor. And it makes it closer.

True!
Good point!
Also it would mean that my weight/power penalty system would be more effective because for most of the season (If this season is anything to go by) there would be at least 8-10 drivers even at the end of the series.
If the replacement/temp driver idea is used also, then that may keep the driver count up over the 10-15 driver figure all season long.

Neil

 

[SHigSpeed]

When you say "stock power" I assume you mean "base power" as assigned to each car at the start of the season?

Yup...

Still waiting for someone to chime in on my idea about representing qualifying results (whether hotlap or sprint race, doesn't matter) in the race times. Anyone?

After considering it, I really don't care, but it would have changed some results this season so it would add some spice if approved. Thing is the sprint format already advantages the faster drivers (see below) as is so do we need to further hedge that? The extra points gained from the higher qualifying may be sufficient reward for a better sprint time.

Your pros tend to favor faster drivers. Given the right car and enough time to actually race, I consider myself a faster driver, however I think we want closer leaderboards by the end of the season rather than broader points splits. You seem quite disturbed by how the weight penalty affected you this season, yet you are sitting atop the GT500 leaderboard. Just something to note

<BLUSH> Yes, they do don't they? That's the point of the sprint quals in my mind. The weight penalties by design favor the slower drivers. This makes the points closER, but reduces the opportunity for faster drives to take the big point wins. So why not allow some "everything on the table" racing where fast is as fast does? There are a few reasons why we race, and the sense of accomplishment gained from snagging a win is one of them. I've been racing for consistency in the main races to maximize points with a heavy/weak car through strategy and harder tires (which mean no fast lap points) while scratching for the few qualy points that I could get because there've been only 5 or 6 cars racing (luckily or I'd be done - ironic twist in the dropout fallout). Sure I still enjoy the time behind the DFP, but at some points this season it's been more work because I feel like I've been driving uphill for a long time!

That's where the sprint race comes in. It does assume that the preseason testing has equalized the cars well or a fast driver in a unfair car will always win, but this is less of a problem with a free choice of cars. At any rate, this allows the handicap to come off the faster drivers to wring it out once every two weeks. If the sprint format does not make it, at least make the one lap qualy session be without penalty weight/restrictor.

I'm not disturbed about how the penalty affected my points total, just the fun factor. It's obvious that it hasn't prevented me from sitting atop the GT500 leaderboard, and I'm not arguing that point....

The sprint race is a nice idea, and I like the diversity it adds to the race weekend, but I honestly prefer the hotlap qualy format. It's a better format for track testing (which some of us don't have time to do outside of qualy and the race), and it represents the overall fastest driver over a single lap, on a given "race weekend".

True it's good for track testing, but it's on RSS tires, which are not allowed in the race. If you "track test" on RMs in the sprint, then you'll know that in the real race that the RS will be slightly faster, and RH slower.

Would you favor qualifying at spec power and weight instead of penalty power/weight as an option?

Just my 2 cents.

For those who missed it last time, here's my proposal about qualy results affecting race times once again:

"...In RL racing, the only advantage you gain by out-qualifying someone is grid position, which translates into a small margin of time at the start of the race. So, my suggestion would be this: 2nd place in qualy adds 1 sec to their race time (or the race admin does), 3rd place adds 1+1.5 secs (2.5 secs), 4th adds 1+1.5+2 secs (4.5 secs), 5th adds 1+1.5+2+2.5 secs (7 secs), and so on. The reason for the increasing time curve is to simulate "cleaner air" at the front of the grid vs. traffic and bottlenecking near the back, as is typical of a RL race. The pole-sitter gains an extra half-second over 2nd on the grid. This is an over-simplification of the real world of course, but it limits the advantage to something more realistic while still providing SOME extra benefit from a good grid position."

Like it? Hate it? Anyone?

 

[SHigSpeed]

www.world-challenge.com for more info, and GT pen. weight system.

Hope it helps!

EDIT 2: Shig, I really like the idea. I'd support it 100%.

Thanks for looking that up. Now if we could only find a nice site that showed the last season's results with the drivers' associated pen weights to see how that affected the outcomes...

👍

-SHig

 

[Tyre King]

How about making the single lap qualifying compulsary, and the sprint race an optional extra with 1/4 or 1/2 points.

A seperate championship for the sprint races, granting additional points to the main championship.

Say +5,+4,+3,+2,+1 points added to the main championship at the end of the whole season!


Just an idea!

Neil

 

[SHigSpeed]

How about making the single lap qualifying compulsary, and the sprint race an optional extra with 1/4 or 1/2 points.

A seperate championship for the sprint races, granting additional points to the main championship.

Say +5,+4,+3,+2,+1 points added to the main championship at the end of the whole season!


Just an idea!

Neil

Well, if you DIDN'T run the sprint series, then you'd be SOL for the main championship so it becomes non-optional if you're serious about the big picture? Besides, to seriously campaign a flying lap qual and a sprint race is more time than many may have as mentioned before and most likely more time intensive than a full race week.

If points are up for grabs, I'll run it, but it'll make it more difficult to really do the best that I can... No cries of sandbagging please!

If there has to be one even for qual, I vote sprint, but if the qual must be flying lap, I vote spec weight and power and possibly points as follows: 5/4/3/2/1/1. This SHOULD in addition to the 10 second penalty encourage more people to not skip qualifying.

-SHig

 

[m.piedgros]

Correct me if I'm wrong Shig, but you appear to have the interests of the fast guys in mind. I followed the series closely at the begining of S2 to try and learn from what appeared to be the fastest most competitive series on GTP. Unfortunately the fast guys had all opportunities to show off their "madd skillz." I agree with Shig. If JGTC wants to be taken seriously as THE place to be for an online GT4 championship, the fast guys need the opportunity to show off they're fast. The.... shall we say, more careful gentlemen will have all the opportunity to show their stuff in race trim. I think, as with everything in democracy, we need to show some comprimise and give the fast guys ample chance to be fast and the "cautious" guys a chance to win by getting a system with unrestricted qualifying (be it sprint race, or 1 lap ... I support sprint race in this situation by-the-by) and the new penalty system you boyos are debating here in the race, to serve its intended purpose(s).

m.piedgros

 

[ZeratulSG]

If there has to be one even for qual, I vote sprint, but if the qual must be flying lap, I vote spec weight and power and possibly points as follows: 5/4/3/2/1/1. This SHOULD in addition to the 10 second penalty encourage more people to not skip qualifying.

Now you're REALLY favoring the faster drivers

If you want to show off your skills or blow away the competition, compete in the WRS. This is a total season competition, and that means handicaps, that means strategy as well as tactics, it means that sometimes you have to work your butt off for a solid position because you're sitting on a lead plate. That is racing, and as a "fast" driver, this only improves your skills more.

It's all about the law of averages. Consistency. Not balls-to-the-wall pace all the time (no offense, Ballstothewall ). Handicap systems are designed to keep the field close. If we start favoring faster drivers, we may as well save ourselves the hassle of the handicap system since it will not serve its intended purpose.

I would support a hotlap qualy format with "stock" power and weight, but only if there are no points awarded. This makes it a "for fun and interest" event. Otherwise you're effectively negating the handicap system.

Having said that though, I don't really see the point in a championship series format.

 

[Tyre King]

Ok,

I think 'we' have debated the weight/power system almost to death now, maybe we should let Eats catch up and work out what he wants to do.

We all have our own mini-agenda's, and vested interests. Some want to give the fast-boys thier heads (so to speak), and some want equality for all.
Some are for the single lap & sprint race qualifying, others aren't (and I do see the agruments against that idea too)
So
Let's allow Eats to work it out, I'm sure he will come up with the compromise solution that we can all live with!

Neil

 

[Casio]

Lets all run our own individual competitions then!

The B-JGTC consists only of me, and the winner gets 1,000,000 points. After 2 races a championship winner is decided. Me.

Oh man....That'd be awesome....

 

[SHigSpeed]

Hey Zeratul, you can be my team-mate then!

Okay, no points qualifier is "pointless" so to speak and therefore not really an option. I am not arguing your position though. I may be asking too much, so thanks for calling me on it.

Let's do the sprint no penalty qual for current points then? 3/2/2/1/1. I submit... I just like the format, and I don't care what points system we use as long as there are SOME available.

Believe me, I don't want a lopsided competition and I don't want to antagonize anyone. I just don't have the time to commit full time to an all out WRS assault any more. I used to spend WAY too much time killing myself over 0.001" there.

Let's play!

-SHig

 

[east]

Just another idea I had for the Penalty system, forgive me if it sucks, or has already been said. Set a certain time differnce limit between drivers (eg 10 seconds) and penalise drivers in groups, for example, Driver #1 wins the race 1 second ahead of drivers #2 and 3, while divers #4, 5 and 6 finish 10 seconds behind them and drivers #7, 8 and 9 and 10 a further 10 seconds behind. #1, 2 and 3 are obviously fairly equal in speed with each other so are penalized equally with +3 weight, the following group were all slower than the lead group by a reasonable margin but were all equal to each other so get no penalty, the following group were slower again but were all equal to each other so all get -3 weight. The numbers I used for the penalties were just an example but this way means there would be no penalty between one fast driver to the next, and would move all slower drivers (instead of only 1 at a time) closer to the faster drivers, once all drivers are within the 10 second limit (or whatever limit is decided) there would be no further need to penalize any driver, or penalties could become smaller from there maybe to get everyone even closer.

 

[Tyre King]

We could use Complete and total statistical analysis.
If you want?

Take all the results, drop the top and bottom, add them up, divide by the number of entrants & get the mean!
Then, find the standard deviation figure. Work out the SD+3/-3 values, the SD+2/-2 values, apportion +/- weight pens to driver's within those boundries.
We could then even apportion half value adjustments for those between SD+1/-1 & SD+/-2!
And for driver's outside of SD +/-3 we could use power pens plus weight pens!
Simple enough HUH?

Sorry, I'm being a little pedantic and sarcastic, side-effects of being a little under-the-influence! (Pool night!)

But you may see the point?

However, all you are proposing is a 'block-effect' variant of my +3,+2,+1,0,0,0,0,0-1,-2,-3 system. So I shouldn't have a problem with it, BUT,The problem is that, as it has been pointed out to me, unless the driver numbers are kept up to a high level..........
your system is even more susceptable to dwindling numbers than mine, as your's depends on at least 10 drivers!
And if results are very close, then up to 5-6 driver's could be in the first catagory alone!

Subjective adjustments and/or statisical analysis would be needed each and every week, just to work it out.
The object here should be to make it easier for Eats to get the results/penalties sorted for the next week, not to make it harder!

A fixed system that does not depend on number of entrants is what is needed.

To vary a penalty system dependant on the number of entries, is statistically anomalous. As the reduction of participants proportionally increases the strength of the system!

ie

A) A variable system of ten drivers, with a max weight penalty (pole-last) of 10%, results in a max weight penalty per position of 1%
B) A variable system of 6 drivers, with a max weight penalty (pole-last) of 10%, results in a max weight penalty per position of 1.66666.%
(Based on S2 weight pen system)
However a fixed penalty system results in the following

A) A fixed System of ten drivers, max penalty (pole to last) of 6%, results in a max weight penalty per position of 0.6%
B) A fixed System of 6 drivers, max penalty (pole to last) of 3%, results in a max weight penalty per position of 0.5%
(Based on something like +3,+2,+1,0,0,0,0,0-1,-2,-3)

So having a variable penalty system with reduced drivers results in increased penalties per position.
A fixed system with reduced drivers actually reduces the effects per position!

Again, sorry, I get a little anally-retentive when I've had a few!

Also I wish I could write a post in one go, without multiple error corrections, examples, explanations for my rambling being required as my fingers catch up to my brain.
Neil

 

[SHigSpeed]

We could use Complete and total statistical analysis.
If you want?

Take all the results, drop the top and bottom, add them up, divide by the number of entrants & get the mean!
Then, find the standard deviation figure. Work out the SD+3/-3 values, the SD+2/-2 values, apportion +/- weight pens to driver's within those boundries.
We could then even apportion half value adjustments for those between SD+1/-1 & SD+/-2!
And for driver's outside of SD +/-3 we could use power pens plus weight pens!
Simple enough HUH?

Precisely!

Sorry, I'm being a little pedantic and sarcastic, side-effects of being a little under-the-influence! (Pool night!)

But you may see the point?

However, all you are proposing is a 'block-effect' variant of my +3,+2,+1,0,0,0,0,0-1,-2,-3 system. So I shouldn't have a problem with it, BUT,The problem is that, as it has been pointed out to me, unless the driver numbers are kept up to a high level..........
your system is even more susceptable to dwindling numbers than mine, as your's depends on at least 10 drivers!
And if results are very close, then up to 5-6 driver's could be in the first catagory alone!

Subjective adjustments and/or statisical analysis would be needed each and every week, just to work it out.
The object here should be to make it easier for Eats to get the results/penalties sorted for the next week, not to make it harder!

Neil

Couldn't agree more. While in theory the "block-effect" pen system (hey Neil, is that an actual stats term?) would be best, it is too hard to officiate. KISS.

-SHig

 

[Tyre King]

Couldn't agree more. While in theory the "block-effect" pen system (hey Neil, is that an actual stats term?) would be best, it is too hard to officiate. KISS.

-SHig

Not an 'official' term, but good enough!

Have you checked out the figures I did? (as an edit!)

Give me a break buddy, I have been up till 4 am for the last few nights(including tonite-ish), and the braincells are a little fried!
Kiss,Kiss, Hug,Hug!
Neil

 

[eatsviper4lunch]

I'm coming with something.

I'm really thinking of only running the GT500 class.

 

[GTXDriver]

Hey man,that's not the solution.In GT300 there were really hard fights and we stayed more then in GT500.It is scandalous:submitted only three guys...

 

[SHigSpeed]

Not an 'official' term, but good enough!

Have you checked out the figures I did? (as an edit!)

Give me a break buddy, I have been up till 4 am for the last few nights(including tonite-ish), and the braincells are a little fried!
Kiss,Kiss, Hug,Hug!
Neil

The figures are fine. Delete zeroes until there are only 6 submissions, then start removing the weight deductions then?

I'd be okay with that...

-SHig

p.s. I guess I'd be okay with all GT500 or all GT300 either way, but there isn't any Nissan reprezen'in in GT3hunnert... :^P ...Though the Garaiya looks fun! That said, i love my car and wouldn't give it up unless I absolutely had to.

 

[GTXDriver]

Hey SHig there is a GT300 Nissan:C-west razo Silvia...👍
It is not included in your GT4-version?
BTW the Garaiya has a Nissan engine.

 

[SHigSpeed]

Hey SHig there is a GT300 Nissan:C-west razo Silvia...👍
It is not included in your GT4-version?
BTW the Garaiya has a Nissan engine.

Yeah, but for some reason, it wasn't included in the party...

Yes, the Garaiya, in street trim, has an engine very similar to the one in my street car (it has variable valve timing/lift, mine doesn't), and the actual JDM engine I plan to install into it this winter! In the race car, does it still use the four banger or is it a VQ 6 cyl?

Nissan gambare!

-SHig

 

[m.piedgros]

Here's an idea, pretty, well... from way out there. To simulate real world conditions tires for next year should be R1-R2 for the race and R3 for qualifications. Just because I've started to hate the R5 and sort of dislike the R4's because of their unrealistic grip levels. REMEMBER: this will add just another drop of realism... always important in a series.

m.piedgros

 

[GTXDriver]

Yeah, but for some reason, it wasn't included in the party...

Yes, the Garaiya, in street trim, has an engine very similar to the one in my street car (it has variable valve timing/lift, mine doesn't), and the actual JDM engine I plan to install into it this winter! In the race car, does it still use the four banger or is it a VQ 6 cyl?

Nissan gambare!

-SHig

As I know the first version of the Garaiya ran with a turbocharged 2000 cm 4-cylinder,but after a season the Aguri Team changed it to a 3500 ccm 6 cylinder N/A engine,last season this was the VQ35DE.I can't decide which one is included in this game,the car already ran with the number #43.
The engine's character shows that this one is the latest version,because it has incredible high torque until 5000 rpm...but I'm not sure.
Anyway this is a good car.

 

[IcemanGER]

So, what's the deal, any news on S3 ???

 

[racefan88501]

So, what's the deal, any news on S3 ???

yea any news?

 

[eatsviper4lunch]

Yes, a sign up thread will go up for the weekend. 👍

 

[Tyre King]

Yes, a sign up thread will go up for the weekend. 👍

Sweet! 👍

Looking forward to it!

Neil

 

[ejr_1]

Hellooooo! I'm back. Haha, I'll have to put down some suggestions after I read all of this, but I will do that later.

I'm still on the fence about joining again for next season, so we will have to see.

 

[Soyfu]

I'm back, too. I've had kind of a big mouth, in the past, and then I disappeared. I just want to shut up and get back into GTP racing.

My suggestions...

1. Fewer car options. This makes balancing a lot easier.

2. Shorter season. 8-9 rounds.

3. Time submission deadline is Sunday, midnight (EST).