Hello There, Guest! Register



Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Count 5 best results
#21
I don't think dropping a race per season is what you really want. I think what you really want is a bigger spread in point allotment for championship points such that winning enough races makes it impossible for someone getting nothing but second places (but showing to every race) to take the top spot. This is likely how professional racers you mentioned above still got a championship even though they missed races.

Yeah, just googled 1977 F1. Lauda only won 3 races. Two other drivers one 3 races. Andretti won 4 races that season! But the point allotment back then was nuts. Only the first 6 drivers (out of ~22!) get points at all... and they have 17 races for the handful of top drivers to pull WAY away from the pack on points... not a measly 6 races like we have per season. Apples and oranges, I think.
Tutorial on how to use Autodesk Mudbox and Adobe Photoshop to make custom liveries! https://tinyurl.com/yaetz4qz
Grab my PDash Skins (an Assetto Corsa HUD app) here: https://tinyurl.com/y95ewubz
Reply
#22
(12-12-2018, 10:06 PM)Roman Yakubovich Wrote:  I don't understand this. Driver 1 practised a lot, watched some videos from real life, gave efforts to dig in the car's setup, won 5 races comfortably, thus being the fastest, probably the most consistent and really careful on track. Driver 2 was constantly slower (at the very least), lost all head-to-head battles to Driver 1. Then Driver 1 had to miss a race due to some sudden circumstances. How does it suddenly make Driver 2 deserve the championship win more than Driver 1? Since when attendance started define more in racing, than speed, consistency and crash proneness?  Huh Driver 2 comes to that race without his main rival. Ok, he is good boy (really). Grab the victory (easier without Driver 1), enjoy the driving and your rating points gain. Why should he be awarded the championship win for that one race? How giving a title to Driver 2 can be fairer than to a faster and more consistent Driver 1 over the distance of the championship?
Because someone else afterwards is gonna come forward and say, well let's make it 4 to count for a championship, thus making 2 races subsidiaries. If a championship on SRS is 6 races, all six should count equally. Personally i would rather have only 5 races, but i accept it's 6 races. It happened to me a couple of times as well, for example getting 4x 102 in GT1 and i missed the first race, was impossible to comeback from it in the standing, plus i get a blue screen just before the start of the race on VIR, but it's not the problem of others who participated to the 6 races. I enjoyed to the end nevertheless and as Marek says, it's not detrimental to anything to just participate, you still get rating normally for it.

In 2016, Rosberg had less wins than Hamilton, yet he won the championship, would it have been fair to give it to Hamilton because of that? Even if you were ruling out 2 races, Hamilton would have take it instead of Rosberg.

Imo it would remove also the most interesting aspect of single event championship, where standing can be very tight even if you have great results on every 5 races you have to play a bit strategic on let's say the last race, a couple have been like that in the past. If you start removing the worst races for everybody, that element vanishes. Winning in motorsports is not always about being the fastest, it's often a lot about being the most consistent over a race or a championship.
Reply
#23
Quote:Would it be fairer to take away the championship from Lauda in 1977 just because he didn't attend last races? From Rindt in 1970? Definitely no.

They got enough points to win the championship even without attending all the races. Right now on SRS you can win a championship that way as well – Marek won a championship where he could have missed the last race, for example. You don't get punished for not attending all the races, you simply get fewer points.

And to keep the real life analogies, Prost should have actually won the 1988 season, but didn't because only the best 14 (or so) finishes counted. Definitely not fair.

And regarding network and computer issues: those kind of are the mechanical failures of sim racing, so I don't see need to compensate them in any way.
Amazing list of awesome achievements: 5th Lotus 25 2018, 4th DRM 2019, 5th Williams FW14 vs. Ferrari 643 2019, 3rd Ferrari 312T vs. Lotus 72D 2020
Reply
#24
(12-12-2018, 07:57 PM)Michal Janak Wrote:  by one of these last race expert lost Alfa 33 champ (
Ugh. You complain too much. On the forum, in a race. Even before a race starts. I'd love to see something cheerful, or positive, coming from you
Reply
#25
(12-12-2018, 10:06 PM)Roman Yakubovich Wrote:  Martin, as for me complication is building a neural network to compute square roots. Adding at most 20 lines of code and a sentence to rules page is not a complication.
Benefit is pretty clear - championships will be won by those who deserve them most more frequently, thus the whole system being fairer.
It all adds up over time. Eventually you end up with a 50-page rulebook and wondering why nothing much has improved.

Being fast shouldn't be enough to win championships.

Being fast is great for setting fast laps.

Being fast and consistent is great for winning races.

Being fast, consistent, and clean is great for your driver rating.

But if you want to win championships you need all that, plus attendance.
Reply
#26
(12-12-2018, 10:06 PM)Roman Yakubovich Wrote:  [quote pid='22500' dateline='1544569906']
I don't understand this. Driver 1 practised a lot, watched some videos from real life, gave efforts to dig in the car's setup, won 5 races comfortably, thus being the fastest, probably the most consistent and really careful on track. Driver 2 was constantly slower (at the very least), lost all head-to-head battles to Driver 1. Then Driver 1 had to miss a race due to some sudden circumstances. How does it suddenly make Driver 2 deserve the championship win more than Driver 



But this is something SRS cannot check. You say you miss a race because of unforseen circumstances, but who's to say it actually was because a track was scheduled which you feel very uncomfortable driving at? 

As I said before, you have to be in it to win it. A championship is won by the best results over a number of races. Not by the driver with the highest average. How crazy would it be, if Hamilton would lay claim to the 2016 world championship, because he had to retire more races than Rosberg because of mechanical failures? 

You are very fast, and it would've been very likely for you to win more championships than you have now if your suggested rule was in effect. But what you're basically asking is a rule, that makes it easier for you to win championships, with lesser efforts from you. How would that make any sense?

[/quote]
Reply
#27
If you are fast you have plenty of chances of getting championships, you can even get some missing a race, unless the guy 2nd in the standing get great results also, but in this case, he doesn't deserve to loose a champ because you didn't show up. SRS doesn't have ballast, which is a great, so you just have to be good and participate!
Reply
#28
(12-13-2018, 01:08 PM)Martin Smith Wrote:  It all adds up over time. Eventually you end up with a 50-page rulebook and wondering why nothing much has improved.

Being fast shouldn't be enough to win championships.

Being fast is great for setting fast laps.

Being fast and consistent is great for winning races.

Being fast, consistent, and clean is great for your driver rating.

But if you want to win championships you need all that, plus attendance.
+1. Consistency is the goal
NEVER GIVE UP!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)