New pointsystem in my mind! Points would have two components: one for rankings and one for time result.
Basic points for rankings: 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Time result bonus, to make some kind of difference between a weak and a stronger 4th/6th or whatever ranking. Take the difference of the winning time and the average time of pipsqueaks, let's say it's X seconds. Divide it to 4 zones:
1, pipsqueaks having better time than WINNING TIME + 0.05X (4 points bonus)
2, pipsqueaks having a time between WINNING TIME + 0.05X and WINNING TIME + 0.20X (3 points bonus)
3, pipsqueaks having a time between WINNING TIME + 0.20X and WINNING TIME + 0.50X (2 points bonus)
4, pipsqueaks having a time between WINNING TIME + 0.50X and WINNING TIME + X (1 point bonus)
Let's see an example:
| no | name | time |
| 1 | Roy Wiegerinck | 1:00.00 |
| 2 | Bismarck | 1:00.15 |
| 3 | CAP | 1:01.45 |
| 4 | Diesel Joe | 1:03.70 |
| 5 | Doelloos | 1:09.30 |
| 6 | Tom Israels | 1:11.05 |
| 7 | Short Cutfinder | 1:24.80 |
| 8 | Mingva | 1:24.85 |
Average of times is 1:09.41, value of X is 9.41 seconds.
So the zones are:
4 pts: 1:00.00 - 1:00.47
3 pts: 1:00.47 - 1:01.88
2 pts: 1:01.88 - 1:04.70
1 pt: 1:04.70 - 1:09.41
From this, you can easily calculate the points:
| no | name | time | pts |
| 1 | Roy Wiegerinck | 1:00.00 | 8+4=12 |
| 2 | Bismarck | 1:00.15 | 7+4=11 |
| 3 | CAP | 1:01.45 | 6+3=9 |
| 4 | Diesel Joe | 1:03.70 | 5+2=7 |
| 5 | Doelloos | 1:09.30 | 4+1=5 |
| 6 | Tom Israels | 1:11.05 | 3+0=3 |
| 7 | Short Cutfinder | 1:24.80 | 2+0=2 |
| 8 | Mingva | 1:24.85 | 1+0=1 |
Intervals can be optimized. And of course Mingva has to be at last place in these models. ;D
Looks a bit complicated but interesting and a bit more fair than the standard system... One problem is that it favourizes power gear experts.
I like it, except that maybe bonus points are too high. Maybe we could have 1-0.75-0.50-0.25 as bonus.
Hmm, undecided - it looks interesting but feels a bit "elitist" (small gaps at the top, large gaps at the midfield), and BJ's objection is valid as well. (Good news USC or its descendant may be back though ;))
Quote from: Duplode on August 26, 2008, 12:47:25 AM
it looks interesting but feels a bit "elitist" (small gaps at the top, large gaps at the midfield)
It depends. There must be a bigger difference if somewhere is a major jump in times. I decided to use this system, only the X intervals will be changed if necessary. Anyway if you look at the model scoreboard, you will see 12-11-9-7-5-3-2-1. It would be 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3 with old USC system, 12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5 with Zak's scoreboard. We have to give some extra points for those who made a really good race, close to the top.
Point system is good, 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. If there are more pipsqueaks, it can be modified to 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, if there are less, then to 6-5-4-3-2-1. I was always attracted to this system since I had become a Stunts pipsqueak. The fact that point system is very elitist is not a big problem, though Chulk are maybe right, less point awards would be better. The big big problem with the bonus system is that the intervals can be very easily modified with GHOSTS. That's why I'm really against this system. But that bonus is still better than leading time bonus, which usually helps monitor and net addicts.
Quote from: Akoss Poo on August 26, 2008, 10:17:36 AM
intervals can be very easily modified with GHOSTS
Like all the other systems... No LTB in the future. Maybe I keep MOR.
Another additional plan: winner of the race should use automatic gears in the next round. Handicaped and maybe well-balanced idea... :)
Quote from: CTG on August 26, 2008, 12:11:44 PM
Another additional plan: winner of the race should use automatic gears in the next round. Handicaped and maybe well-balanced idea... :)
No, please... that is overcomplicating of the rules. With this, the pure racing with equality counts even less...
Quote from: Akoss Poo on August 26, 2008, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: CTG on August 26, 2008, 12:11:44 PM
Another additional plan: winner of the race should use automatic gears in the next round. Handicaped and maybe well-balanced idea... :)
No, please... that is overcomplicating of the rules. With this, the pure racing with equality counts even less...
Muhahaha. I like to make you nervous. ;D
Quote from: Akoss Poo on August 26, 2008, 10:17:36 AM
Point system is good, 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. If there are more pipsqueaks, it can be modified to 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, if there are less, then to 6-5-4-3-2-1. I was always attracted to this system since I had become a Stunts pipsqueak.
Look at the system I use in FTT : 1 point for last driver, then 1 more point for each better ranked driver except for top 2 drivers where there is 2 points difference.
Examples :
4 pipsqueaks : 6-4-2-1
6 pipsqueaks : 8-6-4-3-2-1
10 pipsqueaks : 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
And so on.
A victory versus 9 opponents is more valuable than one versus 3 opponents, but each driver gets points so it's not frustrating for newbies.
System is simple, and efficient to reward the winners while keeping low difference between average to slow pipsqueaks.
Quote from: CTG on August 26, 2008, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: Akoss Poo on August 26, 2008, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: CTG on August 26, 2008, 12:11:44 PM
Another additional plan: winner of the race should use automatic gears in the next round. Handicaped and maybe well-balanced idea... :)
No, please... that is overcomplicating of the rules. With this, the pure racing with equality counts even less...
Muhahaha. I like to make you nervous. ;D
I really hope you were only teasing Akoss with that suggestion... :D
As for point scoring systems, linear scoring (8-7-6...) is likely to over-emphasize LTB or any other bonus point system, something you guys probably want to avoid (just look at the current battle between Mark and me in ZakStunts). I find Krys' FTT system to be an excellent solution, with the only minor risk being that of penalizing too much a pipsqueak who misses a unusually busy race (think of Ozd), but on the other hand that could be compensated by the smaller amount of points given on unpopular tracks or European summer races which end up attracting fewer participants.
I'm thinking on changing the pointsystem a bit - to motivate the less experienced and auto gear drivers too.
Basic points - original version: 16-14-12-10-8-6-4-2-0-0...
In the new suggested system, based partly on FTT:
8 (or less) pipsqueaks: 16-14-12-10-8-6-4-2
9 pipsqueaks: 16-14-12-10-8-6-4-2-1
10 pipsqueaks: 16-14-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1
11 pipsqueaks: 16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
12 pipsqueaks: 16-14-12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
etc.
What's your opinion about that? Calculate with the expected number of pipsqueaks (I guess it will be usually 8-12, maybe with Indy + good Akoss track 13-14).
Good. :)
I like the idea, but maybe you should stop at 12 or 14 pipsqueaks to have reasonably large gaps near the top (with 14 pipsqueaks, 16-14-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, it gets equivalent to FTT, with 2nd and 1st getting one "bonus" point). And BTW I still think you should adopt a cutoff for calculating the average for bonus point distribution (only times within, say, 130% of winning time would be considered).
Considering Duplode's comment, I would limit this system at 12 pipsqueaks. But I don't think to make any limitations for the average time: the current one gives a little bit more for the "slower" pipsqueaks. Since this competition is called 'Unskilled', it's really important.
I like the new system up to 12 pipsqueaks, and bonus point system too. But please don't change anything els while competition is running...
Quote from: Chulk on November 10, 2008, 06:28:52 PM
But please don't change anything els while competition is running...
Sure I won't. ;)