ORCA General Discussion

  • Thread starter BrandonW77
  • 790 comments
  • 27,035 views
12,018
United States
Indianapolis
BrandonW77
imageiva.jpg



Welcome to the home of The Online Racing Championship Association (ORCA). Approaching nearly two years in existence on GTP we have been the home for such series as The Capp Cup (3 seasons), The Alfa Z Cup (1 season), The Silvia Spec Cup(2 seasons), and the DTM-SPEC German Grand Prix(2 events). As the face of GT5 online and the very game itself continues to change we are evolving with it and trying new ways of doing the online racing we've come to love.

There is a core of us who have been racing together for a long time but we're always looking for new members and we're very welcoming of all types and forms of racers or car lovers who adhere to The Good Racecraft Guide. We pride ourselves on clean, gentlemanly racing mixed with stiff competition and general good fun. We have a private lounge we use for our club activities, it can be found under the PSN ID "ORCA_Champ" and by simply sending a friend request to that ID you'll be able to race with all ORCA members. We also have a back up lounge, should it ever be needed, found under PSN ID "ORCA_Spot". These ID's are never online so you won't see the yellow dot above the coffee cup, but if you click the coffee cup you can see if anybody is in the lounge or you can open it yourself for some practice/racing. Most of our races take place with "Tuning Prohibited" which usually has closer racing and makes it easier to just show up for a quick race without needing time for tuning.

In this thread we'll discuss upcoming events, series races and well as discuss ideas for new ventures. Off-topic banter is permitted and encouraged as well as sharing of (tasteful) photos and videos. Any official events or series will have their own dedicated thread with the specifics for times, cars, rules, etc.
 
Last edited:
Let's start by discussing our new adventure into low-powered street cars. Next up on the ORCA calendar is 325pp vintage FR cars on comfort soft tires. Any car pre-1985 that meets the specs will qualify, but there is a short list of cars that standout and have proved to be competitive: '68 Skyline, '70 Skyline, '73 Skyline, '71 240Z, '67 Toyota 2000GT, '83 Celica XX. We have been racing these cars together recently and they're all fairly competitive and very fun to race together.

The proposed schedule is to have official events on a Tuesday (8pm EST) and Saturday (3pm EST) consisting of three back-to-back-to-back races where the finishes of all three races will be used to determine the overall winner. The first race will be short (3-5 laps), the second race will be medium (5-10 laps) and the third race will be longer (10-20 laps). The desire is to balance the field by having the top finishers in the first two races reduced their PP a few points so the third and longest race will see a tight pack fighting for the win.

How it would work:
If there are 7 or fewer drivers the top 2 after each race will receive the success penalty.
If there are 8 or more the top 3 will receive the success penalty.
Each qualifying driver will lower their engine by 3pp, we will do a staggered track entry before the next race.
If a driver finishes in a qualifying position in the first two races they will remove 3pp after both races for a total of -6pp.

Marcus_Garvey was gracious enough to test these numbers out and reducing 5-6pp brought him closer to the pack but didn't cripple him, so he'd still have every chance of winning but it would require just a little more effort. So if he or a driver of his caliber finishes in the top of both races they'd be at what you could call "full handicap", but if someone just finishes in the top of one of the races they only get half the handicap. Since finishing position in all three races count towards the overall, hopefully this will prevent any sandbagging.

This leaves us with a couple questions:

How should we score the races to determine the winner? One way is to take the average of the three finishing positions, so a 1st, 4th and 2nd would be an average of 2.33, the driver with the lowest average wins. Or we could award points for each race, one point for every position (2nd gets 2 points, 5th gets 5 points) and the driver with the lowest score wins. In the event of a tie (in either scenario) the position would go to the driver who finished highest in the third race.

How do we start the second and third races? We have the option to start with the straight finishing order of the previous race (if you finished 3rd, you'll start 3rd) or reverse order of the previous race. Since we're going to be reducing PP, using the reverse grid may be too much of a penalty, or maybe not. So we could start all 3 based on straight finishing order of previous races. Maybe we could do reverse grid for just the second or just the third race. Another option would be to do a reverse grid for the second race without reducing PP, then reduce PP on top finishers from first two races for the third race only.

Or, since these cars are already kinda slow maybe just doing reverse grid for each race would be enough without reducing PP?

Figured I'd get the groups input before finalizing things. Let me know your opinions.
 
That's quite a trailer. 👍

Gonna read the rest now.

Here's what I'd do:

Total winner: average of finishing places, weighted by race length:
Suppose I finish 3rd in 5 lapper, 4th in 10-lapper and 5th in 20-lapper. Then my weighted average is (3*5+4*10+5*20)/(5+10+20)=4.43
Straight average is fine too, gives more incentive to race hard in the first two and keeps things simple.

As for start order - I'd start race two using previous race results. After all, first two races are to adjust PP. I'd start the final race with reverse grid. Shorter races + reverse grid = a bit of chaos and lack of patience. So I'd prefer to use reverse grid in the longest race.
 
Last edited:
Or, since these cars are already kinda slow maybe just doing reverse grid for each race would be enough without reducing PP?
I would say go for both. I also reduced my PP by 3 during that Madrid race and it hardly affected me. Maybe 1 or 2 tenths over a long lap, but compared to how much variation you can get from nailing or messing up almost any corner, it's almost negligible.
 
3pp might be a little low if it only makes 1 or 2 tenths difference. I want it to be a handicap but not a crippling one. I also want it to be a quick and simple process, it could easily get complicated if I'm not careful. I'm realizing that having 3 different levels of PP's means we have to do 3 different track entry's/regulations changes (let 319pp cars in, change restrictions and let 323pp cars in, change restrictions and let 325pp cars in) and that's going to slow down proceedings. I would prefer to just do 1 regulation change and 2 track entry's. Based on that, how about:

Race 1 starts by qualifying order.
Race 2 starts with reverse grid of first race with no PP restrictions, everyone at 325pp.
Race 3 starts with reverse grid of second race and -6PP is applied to top finishers from first and second race.
If a top finishing driver from the first race also finishes in the top of the second race then the next highest driver from the second race will receive the -6PP. (ex.: top 3 from each race are receiving penalty, DSG finishes 2nd in first race and 1st in second race, so 4th place from the second race would receive penalty).

So we'd only have to do one regulation change and it would only be for the final race. Drivers would either be at 319pp or 325pp which would eliminate the 3pp reduction that doesn't really do anything. Yes, this would go against DSG's concern about shorter races with reverse grid leading to impatience but maybe in these lower-powered cars it won't be as big of an issue. This method seems to be very simple and effective but still have the desired result. The proceedings would only be slowed by one restriction change and there wouldn't be a lot to keep track of on my end.

My major concern is that one of the mid-pack guys sneaks into a top spot and receives a PP that cripples him for the final race and ruins the experience. If we had a field of 10 drivers, 6 would have PP restrictions by the final race and I don't think we normally have 6 people that would "need" the success penalty. So to address that, maybe we just penalize 1st place from the first race and 1st and 2nd place from the second race for a grand total of 3 drivers with success penalty at the final race.
 
Personally I don't see the need for setting restrictions, letting people on track, changing restrictions, letting more people on track, etc.
We're all mature enough and have respect for each other to make this sort of thing unnecessary.
 
^ Do you mean the whole PP reduction system in general or using the restrictions to keep people honest? I'm on the fence about the whole concept, but over the last several seasons it seems the same couple drivers always win and I'd like to do something to rectify that. A simple reverse grid rarely seems to work as the fast guys are right back at the front in a lap or two. But the plain reverse grid might have better results in lower powered cars.

EDIT: Not that I have anything at all against the fast guys who regularly win, but I imagine it can get a bit boring for them as well, being all alone up there in first place. This for sure is not an attempt to halt their dominance but simply to make things more enjoyable/entertaining for everyone involved.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm in favour (spelt correctly!) of the PP reduction. I just think we should all be trusted to apply the correct reduction when (if ever on my case) it is necessary.
 
Why must you people cram extra vowels into perfectly good words?? :dunce: :lol:

I'm still not sure the best way to go about it, but adjusting the restrictions is likely a necessary evil. I trust most of our "regulars" to play by the rules without the need for policing. However, if we ever have new people join us (which we really need) they are going to need policed so we might as well just make it a habit from the get-go so everyone is familiar with the routine.

There's possibly another solution, I know if you put your pointer on a persons name when you're in the lounge you can see what tires they're using, etc., if it shows their PP then I'd be able to see whether they're "legal" or not and there'd be no need to change the restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I think we should go with reversed grid in second race, and no PP-penalty.
In third race the full PP-reduction should be added, but no reversed grid. Think the reduced power will be "punishment" enough... :nervous:

As for controlling the pp-reduction, I think we trust in all current active drivers to act by the gentleman's rules.. But again, with new drivers some could be falsely accused, if suspicion was raised...
 
Testing last night showed that Madrid probably isn't going to be a good choice for these cars. First, it rendered the Toyota 2000GT useless as it's gearbox is not setup for the low speed turns and it quickly fell behind. Second, this track exaggerates the gap between slow drivers and fast drivers due to its tight turns followed by long straights which puts a huge emphasis on exit speed, even with a PP reduction of 6 Marcus was damn near 2 seconds faster than me. Without the PP reduction he was approaching 4 seconds faster. With that big of a gap we'd need a 15-20pp reduction and that would likely cripple the car(s) on the straights and make it hard for them to pass.

For now it looks like we'll probably just go to Clubman, the racing there was great and it minimized any performance gaps in the cars. 6pp reduction may not be quite enough, I might have to go up to 8pp to see a bit more of a difference in performance but I hesitate to go much higher than that (at least in these low powered cars). I'm still undecided about the format/procedure for how the race will unfold, I do like the triple-race idea but the more I think about it the more little problems I see with it. One or two little problems aren't a big deal, but a pile of little problems becomes an issue. I like the concept of a PP reduction applied to the top finishers in order to help balance the field but there are a lot of little nagging issues with it that make me think it won't work as well in practice as it sounds in theory.

At this point I'm willing to entertain just about any idea so if anybody has any suggestions please feel free. Our attendance/participation has dropped dangerously low and we need to do something that will get more people involved, otherwise we may be near the end.
 
For now it looks like we'll probably just go to Clubman, the racing there was great and it minimized any performance gaps in the cars.

As a heads up, if you race Clubman (or any night track for that matter), I'll have to sit that one out. No problem.
 
At this point I'm willing to entertain just about any idea so if anybody has any suggestions please feel free. Our attendance/participation has dropped dangerously low and we need to do something that will get more people involved, otherwise we may be near the end.

Capp Cup!
 
You say that......but do you really want that? Really? :lol:

I actually enjoyed running those cars despite being new and completely ******. :lol:

I still maintain that those and the Alfa's were the best racing I've experienced with this group.
 
Bad night vision? At this point we have so few people showing up that I can't afford to lose anybody, so I'll pick a different track.

The headlights of a car close by causes my TVs exposure to go nuts and the screen is nearly 100% black.
Gave me a nasty headache last time (had to miss another race because of it). Not worth it.
 
I actually enjoyed running those cars despite being new and completely ******. :lol:

I still maintain that those and the Alfa's were the best racing I've experienced with this group.

I won't argue that, at least not the post-Camikaze days. :dunce:

The headlights of a car close by causes my TVs exposure to go nuts and the screen is nearly 100% black.
Gave me a nasty headache last time (had to miss another race because of it). Not worth it.

I'll keep that in mind, it doesn't sound pleasant at all.
 
I believe that the PP restrictions could work, but would need to be calculated for different courses. For example, a 4PP reduction on GVE had a seemingly greater effect on lap times than a 6PP reduction on Madrid. Also, I believe that the variation in lap times between different drivers was also less at GVE; likely owing to the technical nature of certain sections of Madrid. When deviation in lap times is lessened, not only will you have a tighter field, but also PP reductions are more effective. For example, if 1st to 5th qualifying time are separated by .7xx, then a 6PP reduction might bring them closer to even. However, if 1st to 5th is separated by 3 or 4 seconds; a 6PP may knock a seconds off that gap, but that still leaves quite a disparity.

That said, given the variances in lap times achievable by the members of our group; to make PP penalty work we must first establish a venue where lap times have the least deviation. From there, a PP penalty can be prescribed after testing for that particular venue. Of course, the PP penalty would likely have to change to maintain effect at other courses. For a one-off race, this could be tested in a half-hour. If a series was to be planned, it would take an evening to develop a plan for each venue .

This might ramble...

Now, as to comment upon the participation level. I will always be here, as I've said numerous times. In fact, I prefer an evening of casual driving with this group to all of the other options out there. It is, however, undeniable that we've lost some people along the way. I am late arrival to this party, as I never competed in the Cappucinos, but joined with the Alfas. There are a few theories as to why a series/club can fall out of popularity. We have moved to a more casual format, potentially turning away those who came for a big show. Also, the move from the 'series' format and forum to the 'leagues' might have limited some potential exposure to new members. Although, I've noticed a much larger viewership in the 'leagues' forum lately than ever used to be, so that might not play a part any longer. I suppose that what I am talking around is that if we want to make a serious effort to get back to the participation levels of before, we need to identify exactly what niche we fill.

To elaborate upon that; there is already a few clubs that have niches that are well defined and have little competition. To grow, we need to do something that noone else is doing(and has interest), or do something that is already done, but better. So the question is, what direction do you want to go? Right now we aren't well defined. We know what we are, but to outsiders we can appear almost like more of a troupe or club, than a league or series. Yes, I know that is what we are, but the appearance of such can be daunting to new members. I've said it before, but it is very unlikely that I'd have raced with any but a couple of you if not for the Alfa championship.

Now, as noted above, I wasn't here prior to the Alfas. From my inferences, however; it seems there is consensus that the group achieved a high point somewhere between the Cappucinos and the Alfas. Since then, we seem to have acquired few new members, but instead have existed on a tapering enthusiasm from just a few core members. So, is it time to go back to a perfected marketing formula, or are we going to try to reinvent the mousetrap? I'm all for either, to be honest.

I have more to say, but I'm interested in the response to the above before I go any further.

Edit: For clarification, I'll elaborate a bit more on that last bit. It is evident, that there is a limited pool of drivers seeking our casual style that has evolved since cessation of the Alfas. It is also evident that the greatest gain in membership has occurred during a mainstream race series. So, what was intended is the 'proven formula' vs 'bettering the mousetrap' is a decision upon direction. Some have found success with a new and exciting format, such as JP's new weekly league, and some specialise in the proven race formulas like PURE and the like. We can do either.

There is no doubting the ability of a popular car used in spec racing over a series of popular tracks to bring in new blood. This would bring visibility back, and be the quickest/easiest solution to one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is finding out exactly why folks that were here left. There is no doubt an abundance of reasons from the timeslot, to the parity, to the types of cars we run. It may be beneficial to obtain some information from folks who left as to why they did so.
 
Last edited:
There should be a setting for that on your TV, disabling something like 'dynamic range' or similar.

I'll have to look into it. It seems only a few people have the problem. I figured it was the PS3 as it only happens in GT5, other games are fine.

EDIT:

Regarding Marcus's post.
If we want a closer race then more drives are the best way to help it. What about opening a public room and letting people just show up? Call give the room a name with "SPEC" in the title I'll bet we will find many great racers.
We could run a 4 lap sprint race and could use that to weed out and "dirty" or just trolling drivers. Then run a few 10 lap features.
I have always wanted to try a setup like this. Anyone can join. SPEC rooms are hard to find and the good ones are always full of 10 players or more. If you stay way from >500 PP rooms running RS tires many can run just as clean/fast or not so much as we can.
 
Last edited:
...snip...

That said, given the variances in lap times achievable by the members of our group; to make PP penalty work we must first establish a venue where lap times have the least deviation. From there, a PP penalty can be prescribed after testing for that particular venue. Of course, the PP penalty would likely have to change to maintain effect at other courses. For a one-off race, this could be tested in a half-hour. If a series was to be planned, it would take an evening to develop a plan for each venue .

This might ramble...

To elaborate upon that; there is already a few clubs that have niches that are well defined and have little competition. To grow, we need to do something that noone else is doing(and has interest), or do something that is already done, but better. So the question is, what direction do you want to go? Right now we aren't well defined. We know what we are, but to outsiders we can appear almost like more of a troupe or club, than a league or series. Yes, I know that is what we are, but the appearance of such can be daunting to new members. I've said it before, but it is very unlikely that I'd have raced with any but a couple of you if not for the Alfa championship.

...snip....

Sorry for all the editing Marcus, but I highlighted the parts I thought were most relevant for me. I'm not as elegant or diplomatic as you so if I may be so bold, the issue I see with ORCA is, no offense to anyone intended, there is too much talking and not enough racing. I think Marcus is right, it would come across to the casual observer/interested newcomer as more of a social group that gathers for informal racing once in a while and every few months a big event.

Unless you're part of the group/clique already, what reason would anyone have to join or come to a casual event? I think most new guys and established guys for that matter, just want clearly defined rules and regulations and regularly scheduled events. They'll take the banter that comes along with it, but if you're a new guy how can you banter with anyone if you're not racing? Doesn't mean an elaborate championship or points or prizes necessarily although that can help. I believe that something just as simple as "show up at this time and date with this car(s) and let's race". And by that I don't mean posting it at 3PM the day of, but a week or more in advance.

Just noticed Carr's post and that's certainly an idea worth considering, that is, doing it in an Open Lobby situation to recruit some new blood. You could even denote someone once in a while to just steward a race here and there to observe how the non-ORCA guys are driving. It could be an additional event along with regularly schedule ORCA races, and maybe an ORCA member could host the event.

Only over time with regular events and clearly defined goals and objectives, will you attract new blood to any series or league and keep the old blood around and interested. After all we're here mainly for racing, not talking. The talking and social part of it is great, but without the racing it's just a social group, not a racing group.

In other words, I think what works best, is to just establish a formula or idea, schedule events, and soldier on regardless of attendance. If 4 people show up to race, you have to continue regardless, and hope to build momentum. If you want to race vintage cars for a month, one make spec another month, Cappy's another month, I don't think it really matters as long as it's cars that appeal to the majority of the group and the races are scheduled and the format is well defined.

When it comes to the PP penalty, again as Marcus has pointed out, you need only do some testing with a consistent driver to figure out how much of an effect 5PP, 10PP etc. has. It's not the type of thing you can figure out during a race, with a field of varied cars, there are just too many variables.
 
@Marcus, your analysis is spot on. The move away from the standard method more towards the club method was mostly intentional on my part and I was aware of both the possible consequences and the possible benefits, so far we've really only seen the former. I have some comments on your comments but I'm at work and don't have time to properly address them at the moment. I will try to have a better response later this evening.

If we want a closer race then more drives are the best way to help it. What about opening a public room and letting people just show up? Call give the room a name with "SPEC" in the title I'll bet we will find many great racers.
We could run a 4 lap sprint race and could use that to weed out and "dirty" or just trolling drivers. Then run a few 10 lap features.
I have always wanted to try a setup like this. Anyone can join. SPEC rooms are hard to find and the good ones are always full of 10 players or more. If you stay way from >500 PP rooms running RS tires many can run just as clean/fast or not so much as we can.

I've been thinking about this same thing, taking what we're currently doing (PP based, tuning prohibited, non-race tires) and putting it in a public room. If I open a room at 325pp, FR, tuning prohibited, CS tires I would guess that a lot of the yahoo's are going to pass by it and go for the 10million PP cars on super-ultra-sticky-soft-race tires. So any people that did wander in would likely be of a slightly better caliber. Hell, it's likely that any room not using race tires would have better caliber drivers and the lower you go on the tire pole the better caliber we'd get.......in theory. If we have our normal core of 4-8 drivers already in the room setting an example then I think Random's might possibly mix in fairly nicely or at least bolster our numbers, I could prune out the trouble-makers that happen to wander in. If I use a consistent name for the room then the good drivers will recognize it and come back for more. I think it's probably worth a try.

EDIT: @JP,

All of that is spot-on too and I've been aware that it's been an increasing scenario, but I didn't know if it would turn out to be a positive or a negative. Figuring out what those rules/objectives/plans are is not always so easy though, and for me the cookie-cutter weekly points series doesn't hold much appeal any more so I hoped we could branch out in another direction. Easier said than done though, but if you've noticed I have been nudging towards a different format: we've almost done enough test races in the Vintage 325pp cars to make up a whole season and we've had quite a bit of fun doing it......at least I have. But yes, as our core gets smaller it makes us appear more closed off and less inviting to new people.

And that's the general direction I'd like to go, have two or three weekly time slots, people show up as their schedules permit and we have a nice stable of cars that we choose from to race. Had it not been for that last update we'd now have a stable consisting of 575pp SS race cars and 325PP CS vintage cars that everyone would have ready to go, we could start off the night with one group and then change to another as the room desires. Of course now our 575pp stable has been crushed and is no longer possible, but I still think the theory is good. Staying with prohibited tuning makes the whole thing quite a bit more difficult but I've shown that it can be accomplished under the right circumstances.

Again, I'll have more to add to these thoughts later, but I certainly appreciate the honesty and encourage more discussion.
 
Last edited:
If I remember right, all this move to the clubs section started with B being burned-out from running points series for too long and trying to minimize time commitment.

I don't see how endless testing of different PP-level cars is helping that. I'm also sceptical that open lobbies could lead to enjoyable races, but I'm willing to try it. The game is old now, and people who are still playing are a bit more mature. That said, just the other day in the H-shifter race we had a random dude pop up 40 minutes into one hour race and start flooding the chat box. Annoying as hell, and that the best that could happen. I'd be 1000% more annoyed if someone decided to use me as a brake in the last corner of the race.

A weekday points series was a nice niche, that has been empty ever since. There's another empty niche - GTP shuffle club. If we're doing open lobbies, I'd just have 2-3 nights per week of GTP clean shuffle, experiement a bit with shuffle ratios in room settings and keep going. Avoids all the unnecessary testing, PP adjustment etc.
 
If I remember right, all this move to the clubs section started with B being burned-out from running points series for too long and trying to minimize time commitment.

I don't see how endless testing of different PP-level cars is helping that. I'm also sceptical that open lobbies could lead to enjoyable races, but I'm willing to try it. The game is old now, and people who are still playing are a bit more mature. That said, just the other day in the H-shifter race we had a random dude pop up 40 minutes into one hour race and start flooding the chat box. Annoying as hell, and that the best that could happen. I'd be 1000% more annoyed if someone decided to use me as a brake in the last corner of the race.

A weekday points series was a nice niche, that has been empty ever since. There's another empty niche - GTP shuffle club. If we're doing open lobbies, I'd just have 2-3 nights per week of GTP clean shuffle, experiement a bit with shuffle ratios in room settings and keep going. Avoids all the unnecessary testing, PP adjustment etc.

The switch to the clubs section was also fueled by my desire to race more than one car a month, and in the last two months I've raced nearly a dozen different cars and have quite enjoyed it. So from a purely selfish perspective it's been rather successful, and I'll admit that after a year and a half of always doing what was in the best interests of the group as a whole I decided to be a bit selfish and try to run some cars that I've always wanted to race.


Do shuffle races even work? I've done maybe 5 or 6 of them in my "career" and every time I got stuck with some terrible car that didn't even come close to matching the other cars in the field so I've never attempted them again. Maybe they're better now but I wouldn't even know how to setup a room for shuffle racing.
 
Massive multiquote snippet!



<snippety>


All of these have a bundle of great points that I would like to speak to in detail, once Brandon has the opportunity to throw his thoughts our way. I will refrain until so. I don't want to put too much on the table just yet.

Brandon, I quoted you in there as well as a reminder of sorts for me later on. My complete sympathies, I was posting and editing by cellular phone today until now.
 
Do shuffle races even work?
I haven't done any in a while, but there's a 'shuffle ratio' that controls car change based on previous results. I don't know if shuffle racing was screw up by recent PP-system change somehow. I guess I can venture into some public rooms to check what's the state of affairs.
 
Back