Stunts Forum

The ZakStunts of tomorrow, today!
Miss the old times? Too bad :o  But you can help us steer the ZakStunts boat towards interesting waters, maybe in the East Indys, where Melanges and Lambos swim free, and the sun never sets. Like in Stunts.

While the game stays the same, the Competition is open to rule changes. This thread is here to collect and discuss suggestions, and also to decide which custom cars will be allowed for the coming season.

See also: Cars and rules for 2022 (http://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=3837.0)

I'll start with my favorite subject then: which custom cars to use.

This year we had two repeat cars that are mainstays of the community, the Skyline and the Melange (though with a new 3D model) and 3 entirely new cars. I the past I think entirely new cars often stayed for multiple years so we could get to know them. I also feel like the CERV III is one of the more interesting cars in the game. I haven't spent enough time with it yet to really put my finger on it, but it's entirely its own thing, with curious but certainly not bad handling. Very good for jumpy slidey stunts. I would also like to keep the Caterham and Stratos on general principles, but since Ryoma expressed he regretted letting us use the Stratos in Zakstunts I'm letting his wishes weigh heavier than my principles, so I would remove the Stratos and also not use any other Ryoma cars. At least for this year, and then see what the future brings.

So with the CERV III and the Caterham locked in there are 3 places left. Personally I would like at least two of those spots to go to fast or medium cars. Melange, F40, GT3, Speedgate (actually, that's kind of a powergear car, I'm not sure we need more powergear cars, same for KITT), Xylocaine, BMW(, Audi, Mercedes), kart, Lola Cosworth Indy, MP4, one of the new ones, one of the old ones I'm forgetting... I feel like that would be good for the balance of the car set. In fact, let's lock in at least one more medium speed car. F40, GT3 or similar. It makes a nice combo with the CERV and it really fills a hole in the original roster. (The Caterham is also pretty medium, so with 3 of them that's definitely enough.)

The last spot I have open should go to something new(ish). So many people have been building cars, let's use them.

So my list would be:
CERV III
Caterham
F40/GT3 (or similar)
Melange/MP4/Cosworth/Xylocaine/DTM/kart (or similar)
Something from the last 3 years

Take a look to the updated custom cars list in the wiki. It has some performance info about them: https://wiki.stunts.hu/wiki/Custom_cars

Melange is my beloved baby of course but if there will be 1 car per builder I would offer the De Tomaso Pantera. Here is attached for download and test. Also if we need/want a slow car I would like to offer Chevrolet Silverado Monster Truck (a little bit faster than LM002). Why I'm not voting Melange? Because there are a lot of new fast cars made by Ryoma.

Speaking about his work I would choose between Ferrari Testarossa or Lamborghini Diablo only if a couple of tiny details are corrected. At least these two car names are very tasty for a ZakStunts season, I can't deny it.

Bugatti EB110 and Jaguar XJ220 are superfast cars, about the performance of CERVIII so they are a good choice too but in a second place.

We can't miss a car by Zapper of course so I vote for Toyota Trueno (as a slow car) or Ferrari F40 (as a Super Sports car).

About Overdrijf's I would add Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM this time because it hasn't a chance to win a race in 2021.

For the fifth car I would repeat Nissan Skyline or CERVIII. If you want to give place to another new car I would vote for one of Ryoma's listed before or Melange. So it's a kind of wildcard.

The meaning of the list is to cover most of the performance range.

So the list would be:

• De Tomaso Pantera
• Toyota Trueno
• Ferrari Testarossa
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• wildcard (fast car maybe, CERVIII, Melange, Bugatti EB110, Lola Cosworth)

OR

• Chevrolet Silverado Monster Truck
• Ferrari F40
• Lamborghini Diablo
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• wildcard

If there is any way to prevent RH, that would be the most important change for me. Probably too much to ask as the start of next season is too close!

I don't have a strong opinion about the cars. A mix of slow and fast cars would be nice. :-)

Quote from: Argammon on November 20, 2022, 03:04:46 PMIf there is any way to prevent RH, that would be the most important change for me.

The return of GAR or a general NoRH side scoreboard, that's a good idea.

Context: GAR stands for Gentleman's AgReement, it means NoRH and OWOOT (top down view of car needs to touch the road in every frame). There was a separate scoreboard for it in 2017-2021. It was scrapped last year because it might be too confusing combined with the change from newbie to amateur scoreboard. But I feel like we can bring it back. We could also do a "plain" NoRH scoreboard instead, that creates less overlap with Race for Kicks, which is always OWOOT.

Since tracks are designed for freestyle sometimes they are in the strictest sense unGARable, but we've always found some rule to make the race work anyway.

(The GAR scoreboard has never come with a need to prove the run's legitimacy, like some competitions in the olden days asked for. It's too much of a hassle.)

Here are a few quick thoughts, still to be further elaborated...

I feel it would be nice to somehow make powergear surprises a bit less likely, though it's hard to find a way to tweak that within the confines of our bonus system. One possibility that doesn't look too intrusive would be having powergear cars that reach a podium spend a few races without recovering bonus points. Still, I guess closer consideration would be needed to be confident that would actually help.

I happily endorse the return of a NoRH side scoreboard, in the spirit of Argammon's (welcome back!!) sugestion.

It's not a priority, but to keep the flame of the perennial proposal burning, we might want to think about moving away from the linear points system. I feel such a change might make the season scoreboard more dynamic.

As for cars, the only suggestion I'm fully committed to right now is keeping the CERV III. Ideally, I'd also support keeping the Stratos; however, I'm in two minds about using Ryoma's cars, for the reason explained by Overdrijf. I'll try to make a proper list of five suggestions later, once I get to test Alan's Pantera.

I'll keep things simple, so below are my proposed custom cars for 2023:

• Chevrolet Corvette CERV III
• De Tomaso Pantera GTS
• Ferrari F40
• Lancia LC1
• Nissan Skyline R32 GT-R

Regarding Ryoma's cars, like Duplode, I kind of agree with Overdrijf.  So if that is the general consensus, I would substitute the Lancia LC1 with the Ford Sierra RS Cosworth.  Otherwise, I think that the current rules and structure of the competition work well, so I don't have any suggestions in that regard.

Quote from: alanrotoi on November 20, 2022, 02:04:54 PMI would choose between Ferrari Testarossa or Lamborghini Diablo only if a couple of tiny details are corrected.

Specifically, which details are you referring to?

For the testarossa i believe.
Acceleration is to slow and grip is to low to feel like a Ferrari. Also the up and down shift settings for auto gear are far from optimal.

They are little tweaks to make a good car awesome

I wonder if there should be an extra significant leading time bonus for whoever has the best time before the quiet days.

On the last track, the times got much better during the quiet days, perhaps indicating pipsqueaks were hiding their real times.

 :)

Quote from: Argammon on November 21, 2022, 11:58:46 AMI wonder if there should be an extra significant leading time bonus for whoever has the best time before the quiet days.

On the last track, the times got much better during the quiet days, perhaps indicating pipsqueaks were hiding their real times.

 :)

You mean as incentive to fight more over LTB? And less surprises in the quiet days.

Is everyone still happy with the new LTB system itself, the amateur league and (a little older) the 1% coefficients changes by the way?

Quote from: Overdrijf on November 21, 2022, 02:24:01 PMIs everyone still happy with the new LTB system itself, the amateur league and (a little older) the 1% coefficients changes by the way?

Well, I didn't start my own competition because I'm "happy" with this one. But i do think that it's well balanced and doesn't need fixing. Re-addition of GAR could be good but does require tracks to be GAR friendly.

Quote from: Daniel3D on November 21, 2022, 02:46:35 PM

Quote from: Overdrijf on November 21, 2022, 02:24:01 PMIs everyone still happy with the new LTB system itself, the amateur league and (a little older) the 1% coefficients changes by the way?

Well, I didn't start my own competition because I'm "happy" with this one. But i do think that it's well balanced and doesn't need fixing. Re-addition of GAR could be good but does require tracks to be GAR friendly.

It's just my opinion, but I find the GAR rules too strict. That is, if I understand it correctly that GAR also means you have to stay on the track. I would just like to drive a few no-RH laps without having to worry about rules.  :)

If you want to test Ferrari Testarossa, it is one of the cars of the month in CCC. Lambo Diablo was a couple of months ago

Quote from: Duplode on November 20, 2022, 08:30:07 PMIt's not a priority, but to keep the flame of the perennial proposal burning, we might want to think about moving away from the linear points system. I feel such a change might make the season scoreboard more dynamic.

I've always assumed that non-linear point would make it easier for one pipsqueak to "run away", and more difficult for others to catch up, but I'm likely wrong. Could you elaborate on the differences?

In the past, ZakStunts has used these point systems:
2001-2003  —→ 12->1
2004       —→ 20, 16->6 step 2, 5->1, 0.09->0.01 step 0.01
2005       —→ 12->1, 0.18->0.01 step 0.01
2006-2007  —→ 15->1, 0.11->0.01 step 0.01
2008-today —→ 12->1, 0.10->0.01 step 0.01


Points in 2001 and 2002 were 10-1 and in 2003 implemented a super complicated system (from nascar?) 275-270-265-260...

Whops, then just as well that automatic calculations are not running for those early seasons 😅

Is it possible to add 2001-2003 data to the rest? I would like to help about it if I can.

The work is in progress :)

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 10, 2022, 12:34:33 PMPoints in 2001 and 2002 were 10-1 and in 2003 implemented a super complicated system (from nascar?) 275-270-265-260...

The rules for 2003 (https://zak.stunts.hu/rules/2003) mention the "175" scoring in regards to teams, but not for the main scoreboard. The scoreboard says otherwise (https://zak.stunts.hu/index.php?page=archives&get=2003season&division=all) ???   I'll update the definitions, which will help bringing the old data into the system.

[edit] Ah, now I understand: in 2003 the "pro" and "amateur" scoreboards used 10->1, but the unified board uses Nascar-style! That's tricky if not impossible to bring into how ZakStunts works post 2003. I'll see what I can do, might just copy the data and block re-calculation.

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 10, 2022, 12:34:33 PMPoints in 2001 and 2002 were 10-1 and in 2003 implemented a super complicated system (from nascar?) 275-270-265-260...

I remember similar scores from Papyrus's Nascar Racing. The only game, apart from Doom, to cause me a Venetian blind crash (https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Venetian_blind_crash) once...

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 10, 2022, 11:38:30 AMI've always assumed that non-linear point would make it easier for one pipsqueak to "run away", and more difficult for others to catch up, but I'm likely wrong. Could you elaborate on the differences?

I believe non-linear points would make it easier to recover from isolated bad results. For instance, suppose pipsqueak X gets a 6th place in a race won by pipsqueak Y, and that in the next several races X wins with Y 2nd. Under our current system, the first race would amount to a gap of 5 points, and X would need five races to catch up. With the 2004 system, though, the initial gap of 12 points would be bridged in just two races.

Switching to a non-linear system would also have implications for LTB. As it stands, a single LTB point cancels out the difference between 1st and 2nd place. Larger gaps for the positions near the top of the scoreboard would lessen the impact of LTB somewhat. (I still think that would be a good thing, though the new LTB system makes outsized influence of leading time less of a concern (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=77288).)

One situation in which non-linear scoring should make it harder to catch up is if someone is trying to sustain a challenge mostly on the basis of regularity (e.g. lots of 2nd places but few or no wins). I'm inclined to think that would be an acceptable cost. In any case, it could be helpful to simulate past season scoreboards with different scoring systems, in order to get a better feel for what might change. 2015 and 2020 might be good places to start.

---

Now please excuse me while I get ahead of myself and speculate about possible non-linear systems: 

While I never got to race under the 2004 system...

1st  2nd  3rd  4th  5th  6th  7th  8th  9th  10th 11th 12th +
20   16   14   12   10   8    6    5    4    3    2    1    point fractions

... its 16..6 linear block looks a little too wide, and the non-linearity could be better spread across the scoreboard. My gut feeling rather favours something like Formula One scoring...

1st  2nd  3rd  4th  5th  6th  7th  8th  9th  10th
25   18   15   12   10   8    6    4    2    1

... though we'd likely want something less top-heavy and easier to relate to our current system. For that purpose, I offer the following hybrid:

1st  2nd  3rd  4th  5th  6th  7th  8th  9th  10th 11th 12th +
24   19   15   12   10   8    6    5    4    3    2    1    point fractions

One way to think about the non-linearity here is bonus points are granted to podium places by increasing the gaps, relative to the 4th-7th range: one bonus point for 3rd, two for 2nd and three for 1st (the gaps grow from 2 to, respectively, 3, 4 and 5). In such terms, the 2004 system gives two bonus points to the winner only.

As for LTB, since this system gives 24 rather than 12 points for 1st place, it would probably make sense to give +2 and +4 points instead of +1 or +2, or perhaps just give LTB points every 120 h rather than 240 h.

(A final, technical note: if you start by assigning 12 points for 1st and 1 point for 12th, then fit an exponential to figure out the points for the intermediate positions, multiply by two and round, the results from 2nd to 10th match the hybrid system above. That means the hybrid system makes the non-linearity about as smooth as it can get without over-complicating things. Below is a chart comparing the scoring systems that illustrates this point.)

point-system-trends.png

I feel like a non linear scoring like you explain would leed to bigger gaps between the top and bottom of the scoreboard and not a fair change.
The current system that the worst 3 results don't count is better I believe.

Is it a lot of work to recalculate this season to you idea to see it's impact?

Duplode explains this really well. I would also prefer a non-linear system.

@Daniel3D As far as I see it, catching up does not become more difficult. If you become 1st, 5th, 5th and I become 5th, 5th, 1st, I catch you at exactly the same point under both systems.

It is mostly about the question whether, for example, 1st 1st 6th, indicates a better performance than 3rd 3rd 2nd. I think so, but others do not. It is all about personal preference.  :)

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 11, 2022, 08:21:48 AMI feel like a non linear scoring like you explain would leed to bigger gaps between the top and bottom of the scoreboard and not a fair change.
The current system that the worst 3 results don't count is better I believe.

Is it a lot of work to recalculate this season to you idea to see it's impact?

I agree. Non linear points didn't work in the past. I'm against it because it is a little elitist. It benefits the top pipsqueaks only.

The current system prevents big gaps with a linear point system. It makes you race in every track and we have the "worst 3 result doesn't count" rule to equalize. And also we have the LTB wich never in the 21 seasons it was implemented determined a winner but always helped to the 3rd-6th positions.

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 11, 2022, 12:25:28 PM

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 11, 2022, 08:21:48 AMI feel like a non linear scoring like you explain would leed to bigger gaps between the top and bottom of the scoreboard and not a fair change.
The current system that the worst 3 results don't count is better I believe.

Is it a lot of work to recalculate this season to you idea to see it's impact?

I agree. Non linear points didn't work in the past. I'm against it because it is a little elitist. It benefits the top pipsqueaks only.

The current system prevents big gaps with a linear point system. It makes you race in every track and we have the "worst 3 result doesn't count" rule to equalize. And also we have the LTB wich never in the 21 seasons it was implemented determined a winner but always helped to the 3rd-6th positions.

To be fair, that has always been the majority opinion. We had exactly the same discussion in the old days, and I have always been in the minority. I just do not have mainstream taste. 8)

In my opinion nonlinear scoring could in the case work for rac3rs, but not for teams, because it would advantage those having a single strong member, rather than two or more collaborative mid-level pipsqueaks.

So, if we switch to nonlinear, then two different score systems (one for rac3rs, one for teams) can be considered.

Wow, this does look like a contentious issue! Let me quickly address some of the points here.

@alanrotoi -- I genuinely don't think of non-linear scoring as elitist. From my point of view, the absolute value of the total scores is not very important, and the key point being how easy it is to bridge gaps on the season scoreboard. A difference of, say, six points might look small to the eye, but that doesn't matter much if it likely takes half a season of hard work to overcome it.

@afullo -- Good point about team scoreboards; we might indeed want to consider the implications for them separately.

@Daniel3D -- It shouldn't be too much trouble to get the simulations done, considering that I already have the historical race standings compiled in table form. I'll try to get it done today, or failing that over the next few days.

Also, I'm not at all suggesting we should stop discarding the three worst results. While the discards also help with lessening the impact of unusually bad results, their main point is allowing people to miss a few races without worrying about the season scoreboard. That makes the discards too important to give up IMO.

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 11, 2022, 08:21:48 AMIs it a lot of work to recalculate this season to you idea to see it's impact?

I have now ran a few simulations, and it looks like those of you who criticised the proposal were right in being suspicious. With respect to making season scoreboards more dynamic and competitive, the results are mixed, and I don't feel I can recommend the non-linear system on those grounds. In particular, I'm now warming to @alanrotoi 's view of LTB being, after the 2020 changes at least, a benign balancing factor. With a non-linear system, it seems we'd have to choose between LTB being relatively small next to the podium place gaps -- which could lower competitiveness over the top positions at least as easily as it could raise it -- and LTB being large in absolute terms -- which risks unbalancing everything, specially the season scoreboard midfield.

Below are some results from recalculations done for the 2021, 2020 and 2015 seasons. A few notes about the tables here:

• "Current x2" values were calculated with the 2022 ZakStunts rules, except that I have doubled the points for positions 1-12 and LTB to make comparisons easier. "Hybrid" values were calculated with the non-linear system I presented above.
• "Real" is the score with discards from the season scoreboard.
• In the 11th round tables, "Available" is the maximum points the pipsqueak could get in the final race. It is not simply the points for 1st place plus maximum LTB because discards have to be accounted for. (For instance, in the last race of 2008 Ayrton only had the LTB points available, as winning all previous races meant there was nothing left to be discarded.)

I have also attached the source workbook for 2021, so that you can explore the data. There are instructions on how to set up the workbook in the first sheet ("parameters"), and the raw data for other seasons is included as well.

---

2021 -- There's a lot going on between 3rd and 8th place here:

• There is a very close fight between Overdrijf and Zapper. The system change has little effect over it.
• Under the current rules, CTG (6 missed races out of 11) comes back for the final race and, with a 2nd place and maximum LTB, overtakes dreadnaut, Zapper and Overdrijf to end up in 4th place overall. With the non-linear system, though, CTG is already 4th after the eleventh race, and gets to overtake KyLiE for 3rd in the final round.
• Under the current rules, dreadnaut ends the eleventh round one position ahead of Akoss (6 missed races out of 11), who would go into the final round with a challenging gap to bridge. With the non-linear system, the roles are reversed.
• Something not in these tables: the 2021 season was decided after ZCT243, the tenth round (real gap between me and Alan of 16 points, while I had only 14 points available from the two final races). With the non-linear system, though, the championship would still mathematically be in play after the tenth round, if only barely (real gap of 19 points, with 22 points available for me, and 31 for Alan). The difference can probably be attributed to the lessened influence of LTB near the top of the season scoreboard.

2021, current rules (x2), after the 11th round (ZCT244):

Real LTB Available
Alan Rotoi 230 24 8
Duplode 212 6 6
KyLiE 158 0 14
Overdrijf 136 0 18
Zapper 128 0 20
dreadnaut 116 0 18
CTG 114 10 28
Akoss Poo 100 0 28
2021, current rules (x2), final results:

Real LTB
Alan Rotoi 234 24
Duplode 212 6
KyLiE 160 0
CTG 140 14
Zapper 138 0
Overdrijf 138 0
dreadnaut 116 0
Akoss Poo 100 0

2021, hybrid non-linear, after the 11th round (ZCT244):

Real LTB Available
Alan Rotoi 216 24 13
Duplode 197 6 9
KyLiE 107 0 20
CTG 97 10 28
Overdrijf 85 0 23
Zapper 81 0 24
Akoss Poo 77 0 28
dreadnaut 64 0 23
2021, hybrid non-linear, final results:

Real LTB
Alan Rotoi 225 24
Duplode 197 6
CTG 120 14
KyLiE 109 0
Zapper 89 0
Overdrijf 86 0
Akoss Poo 77 0
dreadnaut 64 0

2020 -- A season which featured a three-way battle for the title that went to the final round:

• With the non-linear system, the title would have been decided at the end of the eleventh round! If the change of balance would have delayed the decision in 2021, here it would have anticipated it, robbing us of a three-way decider.
• With the current rules, Overdrijf and dreadnaut reach the final round drawn (in both real and available points!) while fighting for 4th place. Under the non-linear system, Overdrijf would have a rather significant advantage of three points (which amounts to more than a position anywhere below the podium).

2020, current rules (x2), after the 11th round (ZCT232):

Real LTB Available
Duplode 210 2 8
Seeker1982 204 16 12
CTG 202 14 10
Overdrijf 162 2 14
dreadnaut 162 6 14
2020, current rules (x2), final results:

Real LTB
Duplode 214 2
CTG 210 18
Seeker1982 208 16
Overdrijf 166 2
dreadnaut 164 6

2020, hybrid non-linear, after the 11th round (ZCT232):

Real LTB Available
Duplode 199 2 13
Seeker1982 172 16 18
CTG 171 14 16
Overdrijf 114 2 20
dreadnaut 111 6 20
2020, hybrid non-linear, final results:

Real LTB
Duplode 208 2
CTG 182 18
Seeker1982 177 16
Overdrijf 118 2
dreadnaut 113 6

2015 -- one of the closest title battles ever:

• The non-linear system would remove some of the sting of the big final round battle, as Akoss and me wouldn't go into it drawn. Still, Akoss would have been able to win the title without depending on my result (9 available points to bridge a gap of 6, while a perfect race by Akoss would leave me with at most 2 more LTB points, as getting anything else would require discarding a 2nd place). It was a pretty close season for the two of us in terms of LTB, so the balance is not affected all that much despite the old LTB rules.
• AbuRaf versus Usrin for the 5th place would see little change under the non-linear system, though the final gap would be a bit larger in relative terms.

2015, current rules (x2), after the 11th round (ZCT172):

Real LTB Available
Duplode 236 24 6
Akoss Poo 236 28 6
Marco 174 2 12
AbuRaf70 144 0 16
Usrin 138 0 18
2015, current rules (x2), final results:

Real LTB
Duplode 242 28
Akoss Poo 238 30
Marco 180 2
AbuRaf70 148 0
Usrin 146 0

2015, hybrid non-linear, after the 11th round (ZCT172):

Real LTB Available
Duplode 230 24 9
Akoss Poo 224 28 9
Marco 127 2 18
AbuRaf70 92 0 22
Usrin 86 0 23
2015, hybrid non-linear, final results:

Real LTB
Duplode 239 28
Akoss Poo 226 30
Marco 136 2
AbuRaf70 96 0
Usrin 93 0


Alright. Sometimes i hate being sort of right because I'm not opposed to change. There are two saying's in English (probably of American Origin) that are stupid.

• Don't change a winning formula.
• Don't fix if it ain't broken.

Both mean that nothing changes.
The Dutch have a saying that makes more sense to me.

• stagnation means decline.

You always have to keep searching for a better way.

Don't change for the sake of changing, but if there is a better option. Go for it.

Back on topic.
"Good talk, let's keep it as it is" at least for the top 12 points.
----\/----EDIT------\/------
After reading the post's several times and looking at this graph.
point-system-trends.png

I have a idea to make the lower part more exciting for the rest.
But I don't know what impact it will have.
The points after position 12 get very low in the current system, if you graph the points you get on a scale the line disappears after position 12.

Would it be more interesting to follow exponential regression and (make position 10=3, 11=2,5 and 12=2) from 13 onward a further regression following the graph as close as possible.
That would make the difference after position 12 smaller but also worth fighting for.
I personally don't bother to improve much at the moment because I never made top 12, so the points I get are meaningless to me.

The exponential regression doesn't matter much for the top 12, but it may be fairer as a whole.

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 12, 2022, 10:45:56 AMWould it be more interesting to follow exponential regression and (make position 10=3, 11=2,5 and 12=2) from 13 onward a further regression following the graph as close as possible.
That would make the difference after position 12 smaller but also worth fighting for.
I personally don't bother to improve much at the moment because I never made top 12, so the points I get are meaningless to me.

That's an interesting idea! Under the current rules, those small fractional points are tiebreakers which, in practice, are separate from the rest of the scoreboard (given the three discards, twelve 13th places bring less points than a single 12th place). I don't feel there's a strong reason to keep it like that, if a change would help with motivation.

(One thing that larger fractional points would reduce is the value -- symbolic or otherwise -- of reaching 12th place/"full" points. I'm not sure how much that actually matters, though.)

As for the points for each position, right now I'm inclined towards a slightly different system: keep things as they are up to 12th place, and after that have a ratio of 0.7 between consecutive positions, which is approximately what we'd get with an exponential starting from 7th place (rather than 1st, as in that graph). Here is what it would look like, rounding to two decimal places:

12 1
13 0.70
14 0.49
15 0.34
16 0.24
17 0.17
18 0.12
19 0.08
20 0.06
21 0.04
22 0.03
23 0.02
24 0.01


An additional note about this idea. While starting the exponential points from 10th place isn't my favourite option at the moment (non-integer point assignments larger than 1 feel weird to me), if we were to do that it might make sense to choose an exponential such that its slope at 10th place matches the linear slope from 1st to 10th:

point-systems-exp-at-10-3.png

The ratio between consecutive positions for that would be exp(-1/3) ~ 0.717, which happens to be pretty close to the 0.7 I had suggested earlier. The resulting point assignments, rounded to two places in the table below, look sensible to my eyes:

10    3
11    2.15
12    1.54
13    1.10
14    0.79
15    0.57
16    0.41
17    0.29
18    0.21
19    0.15
20    0.11
21    0.08
22    0.05
23    0.04
24    0.03
25    0.02
26    0.01


This looks like a real improvement to me.
Thank you for working on it.

Why not top 20 with integer numbers? 20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10--9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. There won't be any difference or advantage for the top but you'll have a point fight in lower positions of the scoreboard. Top 20 or top 18 or top 15 as you wish but extending the points scale would add interesting new fights. Those who race just few minutes or almost without RH could be benefited with a more inclusive point system.

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 17, 2022, 12:15:33 AMWhy not top 20 with integer numbers? 20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10--9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

I'm afraid I don't like this very much. One big concern is that it would raise too much the cost of missing a race. To illustrate the issue, I have added a 2021 simulation at the end of this post.

If we want full points for more people, perhaps the best thing to do is multiplying everything by 5 (so 60 points for a win and +5/+10 LTB) and adopting @Daniel3D 's suggestion of linear points down to a certain point of the scoreboard and exponential points after that. In particular, I think switching to an exponential at 8th place can, after rounding and tweaking the numbers a bit, give a nice compromise between our suggestions:

Pos.   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20
Pts.  60  55  50  45  40  35  30  25  21  17  14  11   9   7   6   5   4   3   2   1


---

Here is the 2021 simulation with the 20..1 extended linear system. Look at the last column to see who would lose positions with the change (also, you can scroll the table to see what happens down to 20th place).

Räcer Races Pts. 20..1 Pts. 12..1 Position Change
1 Alan Rotoi 12 189 117 0
2 Duplode 12 178 106 0
3 KyLiE 12 152 80 0
4 Overdrijf 12 141 69 +1
4 Zapper 12 141 69 +1
6 dreadnaut 12 130 58 +1
7 CTG 6 118 70 -3
8 Heretic 12 115 43 +1
9 afullo 12 105 33 +1
10 Akoss Poo 5 90 50 -2
11 Cas 12 89 18.19 +2
12 Ryoma 7 80 28.06 -1
13 Shoegazing Leo 12 78 9.37 +5
14 Friker 4 60 28 -2
15 Marco 6 51 15.28 0
16 Stan 286XT 12 50 1.57 +6
17 KaoS 9 49 3.44 +3
18 GTAMan15 5 46 10.16 -2
19 Frieshansen 3 40 16 -5
20 Igor 7 35 1.38 +3

By the way, here's what we'd get with the cutoff-at-8th system I have suggested above. Note there are no position changes down to 13th place, and the changes that do happen are quite a bit milder:

Räcer Races Pts. Pts. (12..1) Position Change
1 Alan Rotoi 12 585 117 0
2 Duplode 12 530 106 0
3 KyLiE 12 400 80 0
4 CTG 6 350 70 0
5 Overdrijf 12 345 69 0
5 Zapper 12 345 69 0
7 dreadnaut 12 290 58 0
8 Akoss Poo 6 250 50 0
9 Heretic 12 224 43 0
10 afullo 12 181 33 0
11 Ryoma 7 151 28.06 0
12 Friker 4 142 28 0
13 Cas 12 127 18.19 0
14 Shoegazing Leo 12 97 9.37 +4
15 Marco 6 96 15.28 0
16 Frieshansen 3 80 16 -2
17 GTAMan15 5 69 10.16 -1
18 Seeker1982 2 56 10.08 -1
19 KaoS 9 55 3.44 +1
20 Stan 286XT 12 53 1.57 +2


Those who missed 6 and 7 races were who lost the most. I think if you miss half of the year or more you are aware about not fighting for the points. If this is the only weakness I still support it. Afullo, Heretic, Leo, Cas, Stan... They raced the hole season and the system does not recognize it yet.

Quote from: Duplode on December 17, 2022, 04:05:52 AMIf we want full points for more people, perhaps the best thing to do is multiplying everything by 5 (so 60 points for a win and +5/+10 LTB) and adopting @Daniel3D 's suggestion of linear points down to a certain point of the scoreboard and exponential points after that. In particular, I think switching to an exponential at 8th place can, after rounding and tweaking the numbers a bit, give a nice compromise between our suggestions:

Code Select Expand

Pos.   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20
Pts.  60  55  50  45  40  35  30  25  21  17  14  11   9   7   6   5   4   3   2   1


I like this line. Since we have often more than 20 participants I want to make the same point for the points after 1.
I suggest 0.95 -> -0.05 linear. That way even those who are averaging around 25 or so can have their own battle because differences are smaller in points.

Howdy :)

Let me drop my 2 cents here...

It is not a coincidence ZakStunts had most of the time a linear scoreboard.
IMHO there are two key - and contradicting - factors, which always drove the point system:

1) Value regular participation as much as possible (which if I remember well is also the reason why LTB was born in the first place ... then came quiet days to make it even more important)

2) Do not discourage regularly participating pipsqueaks if they skip a few races (hence ignoring the worst races)

Most of the time we struggled with a low amount of regular pipsqueaks and hence the point system was always somewhat biased for participation. The one exception was 2003 when we had plenty of pipsqueaks, so we switched to nascar-style, as it was not really a problem for most to be present throughout the season.

I still feel that race winners are awarded in other ways well enough (hall of fame, etc.) and we you can never encourage enough the "middle class", who are enthusiastic and very often the backbone and driving force of the community, even though they cannot even dream of finishing on the top.

That said, I have not been really around recently. If you feel the situation has changed, do not hesitate to change the points system. Just wanted to share the key ideas that drove my thoughts back in the early ZS years and hint that -at least for me- the key driver for the system was always the incentive to keep the community active and engaged.

The points for the 12+ positions were a technical compromise. Any change to this part can just improve things.

I have another option to consider. I had some time to math like a matherfucker during my train rides and I was thinking: could we make something that gives everyone the same relative differences to fight over? So basically: if pipsqueak 1 improves from place 5 to place 1 and gets double the score for their troubles, then pipsqueak 2 improving from place 10 to place 6 also sees their score double.

I was first thinking about using powers of 2, everytime the total score gets half as low the steps between the points are also halved, going something like: 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.75, 1.5, 1.25, 1, 1.875, ugh, decimal system. This is getting ugly.

So then I figured we can approximate powers of 2 using a factor 10 as if it was 8, using steps of 5, 2 and 1. This score system is almost as good with relative differences as pure powers of two, and it's easily and infinitely scalable. Everytime you go down another order of magnitude you just put a zero in front of the last series and there's your next numbers.

I found 3 different ways of bridging an order of magnitude using 5's, 2's and 1's. The first is obviously too steep: 10, 5, 3, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05... This one takes only 5 steps to cross an order of magnitude. So gaining 5 places gets you 10 times the score. And as you can see gaining just one place can gain you as much as twice the score.

The other two are more reasonable. There's one that crosses an order of magnitude in 10 steps and one that does it in 16. Here is a graph showing the two, including those nice awkward "baby's first Excel graph" lines to help visualise where and how much these lines deviate from a nice curve/exponential regression. (Also no axis lables, and an awkward empty bit because the axis starts at 0, I'm a total graph bad boy) Starting points are arbitrary, but I chose to start both of them at 3 steps above 10, to give the podium positions the highest absolute point gains.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0jCZSkp/scoring-systems.png)

As you can see the 10 point system (the grey line) actually maps pretty close to Duplode's hybrid system (the light blue line). Starting at 25 points the number 12 gets 1 point, the number 22 gets 0.1 point. It looks reasonable at first glance. However, I feel like it may be too steep. 10 steps up to get 10 times the score feels reasonable, but up to twice the score for 2 places gained (4 to 2 for instance), that's big. (Though not nearly as big as going from place 13 to place 11 in the current system, of course.) (Full order of this system: 25, 20, 15, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.25, 0.2, 0.15, 0.1, 0.08...)

So I would probably prefer the 16 step system (the orange line). Starting at 16 for first place the number 12 gets 3.5 points, the number 20 gets 1 point and the number 36 gets 0.1 points. And that's the part that feels unsatisfying about this one. In a bit of a slow month there might be 14 people on the track, so someone gets 2.5 points for showing up, that feels weird. It also starts using half points very early, doesn't feel extremely elegant. However, you double your score by gaining 4 to 5 places (edit: called it exactly five before this edit). That feels good. Those 2.5 point for showing up and ending 14th? They're not going to completely invalidate your hard fought battles for places 20 to 18, for which you still got 1 and 1.4 points respecitively. Ending 3rd while your rival got the win is also a sensitive blow but not a season ender, as it's the difference between 12 and 16 points, you can still make up for that. (Full order of this system: 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.8, 1.6, 1.4, 1.2, 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.45...)

(If you start at 12 points rather than at 16 place 12 gets only 2.5 points, place 18 gets 1 point and place 34 gets 0.1 point, which may map onto our average attendance numbers better.)

So that's probably what I would do, the 16 step 521 system (patent not pending). It makes the experience of fighting for second to last place more similar to fighting for first place, it's infinitely scalable, and the point differences you get for positions feel good. Because the score for every position is higher than under the current system we could furthermore consider giving a leading time point per 200 hours rather than 250. (But not if 1st place gets only 12 points, then I'd leave it at the current number.)

Leading time wise I would scrap the rule that says you can't keep any hours you gain that go over the limit while you can cary over hours that fell under the limit, even to another season. That still feels weird to me.

We could switch to a new LTB system altogether where we try something wild like just keeping track of everyone's leading hours and hand out a thirteenth race worth of points at the end of the year or something, but we just got a new leading time bonus system (and honestly that suggestion I just made up sounds pretty bad, overpowered mostly). So I would prefer to keep the latest version and tweak it a little over scrapping if altogether, also because we have seen good leading time battles this year, the system clearly motivates people.


EDIT: Looking at the graph I spot another option: use the 10-step version but flatten out the top of the curve a bit. The top positions now give less relative gain than anything else, but still the biggest absolute gain. Maybe something like: 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5... It now has a less extreme upper range, matching Duplode's curve more closely, it avoids the problems of the 16 step curve where the last person in the race still gets a bunch of points and where the half points start too early but it still has a smooth curve going down the ranks and aside from the top everyone else still fights over the same relative differences, even if they're kind of big differences. Although this modification does break the elegance, so at that point why even use this system?

(https://i.postimg.cc/QxfvQ615/scoring-systems-2.png)

Very interesting discussion about the point system!

I have a different and much simpler issue though. Should the track designer not gain any leading time for, say, the first week?

The background of my question is that I am planning a dual-way track in February. To make sure one of the ways isn't completely useless, I will have to playtest quite a bit. This would essentially give me an unfair advantage, though the experts will surely find the tricks rather quickly. What do you think?  8)


PS: There will be one simple and one more difficult way. The more difficult way will hopefully be a bit but not much faster.

@Argammon With public replays, the advantage of the track designer disappears rapidly. There might be also small changes applied by the executive committee, just to mess with the designer's muscle memory ::)

Points system: should we start with the smallest possible change that a) keeps a linear progression b) makes the 13+ scores more meaningful?

What about 12 -> 1 step 1, 0.95 -> 0 step 0.05, as initially mentioned by @Daniel3D?

No please, stop building dual-way tracks.

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 19, 2022, 12:10:25 AMPoints system: should we start with the smallest possible change that a) keeps a linear progression b) makes the 13+ scores more meaningful?

What about 12 -> 1 step 1, 0.95 -> 0 step 0.05, as initially mentioned by @Daniel3D?

While I'm okay with the general plan here, a ~5% gap between positions next to each other is too small, be it 1 over 20 or 0.05 over 1. Acknowledging performances with raised scores is good, but that should come along with proportionate gaps so that there's also extra incentive for fighting for positions. For that reason, if we are to extend the points system beyond 12th place, I think it is important to have some non-linearity in that region of the scoreboard. (See also @Overdrijf 's argument about relative differences in the post above, which is closely related to the point I'm trying to make here.)

That being so, here goes another compromise proposal: Keep the 12..1 linear system from 1st to 12th as it is, and use the following table beyond 12th:

Pos.  12    13    14    15    16    17    18    19    20    21    22    23    24    25    26    27    28    29    30
Pts.  1     0.85  0.7   0.6   0.5   0.45  0.4   0.35  0.3   0.25  0.2   0.16  0.12  0.1   0.08  0.06  0.04  0.02  0.01

Notes on this table:

• The point assignment is loosely based on an exponential with a 0.85 ratio between adjacent positions, with tweaks for the sake of simplicity and memorability.
• For the moment, 30th place looks like a sensible place to stop, given that the largest number of non-ghost pipsqueaks ever in a single ZakStunts race is 24. We can always review and extend the system if the number of races grows a lot.
• Optional addition: change 24th place to 0.14, shift everything below one position down (so that 30th gets 0.02), and have everyone from 31th on get 0.01. While I'm not sure how good an idea that actually is, I feel this system extends far enough down the scoreboard for a small participation reward like that to be affordable.

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 18, 2022, 11:53:43 AMLeading time wise I would scrap the rule that says you can't keep any hours you gain that go over the limit while you can cary over hours that fell under the limit, even to another season. That still feels weird to me.

Discarding excess hours after LTB is won, though, sometimes adds an extra dimension to the LTB fight: if you get +1 early in the race, there's extra pressure to defend the lead until the +2, in order to see as few hours as possible being wasted. Not doing those discards would be equivalent to merely summing the hours over the season and dividing by 240, which is arguably less interesting in terms of jeopardy and entertainment. As for cross-season carry-over hours, while that is a bit weird indeed, it is defensible on the grounds of motivating up-and-coming pipsqueaks who couldn't quite get 240 hours over the previous season.

(On the points systems, later I'll run simulations for your 16-step system, or a slightly modified version thereof. It doesn't seem we'll get a consensus for adding non-linearity to the upper part of the scoreboard, but still I'd like to see how much milder would the changes be relative to the system I suggested earlier.)

Quote from: Duplode on December 19, 2022, 01:53:43 AM(On the points systems, later I'll run simulations for your 16-step system, or a slightly modified version thereof. It doesn't seem we'll get a consensus for adding non-linearity to the upper part of the scoreboard, but still I'd like to see how much milder would the changes be relative to the system I suggested earlier.)

That's a good idea, I should just do that myself. Will be up this evening. (You're still free to run your own analysis and build variants and such of course.)

Quote from: Duplode on December 19, 2022, 01:53:43 AMhere goes another compromise proposal: Keep the 12..1 linear system from 1st to 12th as it is, and use the following table beyond 12th:

Code Select Expand

Pos.  12    13    14    15    16    17    18    19    20    21    22    23    24    25    26    27    28    29    30
Pts.  1     0.85  0.7   0.6   0.5   0.45  0.4   0.35  0.3   0.25  0.2   0.16  0.12  0.1   0.08  0.06  0.04  0.02  0.01


I like this proposal. I don't think that the point system for the top 12 needs changing. It's been successful for a very long time.
The points beyond 12 are a lot fairer than the current system without being overpowered.

Quote(It doesn't seem we'll get a consensus for adding non-linearity to the upper part of the scoreboard)

It's good to strive for consensus. I think that the non-linearity line is better (contrary to my initial believe) but it's a big change and that is not a thing to force upon players.  8)

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 18, 2022, 11:53:43 AM(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0jCZSkp/scoring-systems.png)

So I would probably prefer the 16 step system (the orange line). Starting at 16 for first place the number 12 gets 3.5 points, the number 20 gets 1 point and the number 36 gets 0.1 points. And that's the part that feels unsatisfying about this one. In a bit of a slow month there might be 14 people on the track, so someone gets 2.5 points for showing up, that feels weird. It also starts using half points very early, doesn't feel extremely elegant. However, you double your score by gaining 4 to 5 places (edit: called it exactly five before this edit). That feels good. Those 2.5 point for showing up and ending 14th? They're not going to completely invalidate your hard fought battles for places 20 to 18, for which you still got 1 and 1.4 points respecitively. Ending 3rd while your rival got the win is also a sensitive blow but not a season ender, as it's the difference between 12 and 16 points, you can still make up for that. (Full order of this system: 16, 14, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.8, 1.6, 1.4, 1.2, 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.45...)

(If you start at 12 points rather than at 16 place 12 gets only 2.5 points, place 18 gets 1 point and place 34 gets 0.1 point, which may map onto our average attendance numbers better.)

So that's probably what I would do, the 16 step 521 system (patent not pending). It makes the experience of fighting for second to last place more similar to fighting for first place, it's infinitely scalable, and the point differences you get for positions feel good. Because the score for every position is higher than under the current system we could furthermore consider giving a leading time point per 200 hours rather than 250. (But not if 1st place gets only 12 points, then I'd leave it at the current number.)

Here's my followup "simulation" of this "16 step" system, recalculating this year's results as if they were raced under a different point system but all the results were the same. I didn't touch the LTB points. Those nice in-forum tables are way too clean for me, so I'm going with a big Excel screenshot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxsY6pWh/16-step-521-system-2022-results.png)

I see two groups of winners and two groups of losers in this system compared to the old one, and they seem to tie into two pairs. One pair of minor winners and losers, one of major winners and losers.

The minor winners are people who score top three places. Alan and Duplode both gain a bunch of points. But they were already on top, having shown up every months and not having gone lower than 4^th place between them. It is instead CTG's score that shows us what can happen. Great results by a great driver combined with months of inactivity pay more than they would have under the current system. They let CTG overtake Zapper, who just happens to be the perfect example of the minor losers. He consistently and persistently places between 4^th and 9^th place every single month, the exact range of places that gains the least in absolute terms (except for the very lowest positions), only getting 1 point extra each. Zapper therefore scores only 9 points extra, 1 for every month not counting his three worst results. Heretic is another example, also only having place 4 to 9 finishes ones you strike off his worst 3 months. He too gains a few less extra points than more inconsistent drivers like yours truly.

Am I happy with this set of winners and losers? Not sure. I don't want to discourage drivers like Zapper, who showed us an amazing solo season. Then again, I personally find it never hurts too much to end behind an amazing and experienced pro driver like CTG. And it does encourage the subtop to shoot for the moon. One or two third places in a season can make a difference. (I also feel like my expectations may be schewed because in essence the current linear system really benefits the subtop, giving them reasonable gaps with the real top but an insurmountable chasm below them that someone who often ends below place 12 can never hope to cross.)

The major losers of this system are good drivers who show up for three races or less, especially if they fail to grab podiums when they do show up. They get overtaken by the major winners: people who get lower results but race more consistently. Stan goes up 5 places when his 3.5 points are turned into almost 24 points, and Daniel goes up a whopping 8 places when his half a point turns into 13.5 points. This is enough to get both of them into the part of the scoreboard with people who actually attended most races, skipping over drivers like Argammon, Marco and Joe, who all drove just one race. (Leo and afullo were not marked, but also find a big juicy score boost.)

Am I happy with this change? While it may seem super broken at first compared to the current system... yes, yes I am happy with this change. It feels like it would be incredibly demotivating to drive hard month in month out and checking the yearly leaderboard just to see you're sinking lower and lower under the weight of people who came in this one time. This feels good. These drivers deserve these positions on determination alone.

One thing that disappoints me a little bit is that there are still cases where the order on the amateur scoreboard is not the same as on the main board. Even with the internal consistency of this points scheme the differences in how many pros end up between amateur results make this comparison inconsistent. (On an only mildly related note, I like how the amateur scoreboard feels a little fuller than the newbie board used to be, and that's good. I think the change was a good thing.)



Conclusion: The thing I really like about how this calculation turned out is how the slower but consistent drivers end up being more part of the pack. This is the part that can also be achieved by only changing the tail end of the scores. And honestly based on these results I think we shouldn't be too stingy when we do that. A good target I think is to give people a fair chance to score at least a full point each race, letting someone with perfect attendance and a serious drive each time end up around 9 points, above most one-time drivers. (The hockey stick looking model starting at 3 points might work.) As for the effect on the higher end of the scale: I'm not actually sure. The rules where your three weakest races don't count already benefits inconsistent drivers. That already to some degree does the job of non-linear scoring. But I also don't really dislike the ranking this system gives. It might take some getting used to...

First of all, thank you all for the many charts and tables! This is awesome ✨

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 19, 2022, 08:42:04 PMThey get overtaken by the major winners: people who get lower results but race more consistently. Stan goes up 5 places when his 3.5 points are turned into almost 24 points, and Daniel goes up a whopping 8 places when his half a point turns into 13.5 points.

In the current point system, drivers in position 13+ are not assigned a score, as I've mentiond before, but a symbolic value used for ordering. F1 gives everyone zero points, and that's it. Look at the decrease ratio of the current system, and how it screws everyone below 12 position. That 90% drop from 1 to 0.10 automatically excludes them from the main competition.

current-decrease-ratio.png

Any system that assigns them actual points will see them "major winners" 🎉

I think we all agree on the goal here: to see a larger number of pipsqueaks enjoy the fight for the middle and low scoreboard. To do so, we only have to remove that 90% drop.


The discussion about linear vs exponential scoring is a separate one. The way I understand it:

- Exponential systems are adapted for uncertainty and reward exceptional good results. They add excitement real-world competitions, affected by random events like burst tires or pit-stop mishaps.

- Stunts doesn't have rainy days (yet?) and ZakStunts has evolved to reward consistency. There is little or no uncertainty, since month-long events make it very unlikely that an engaged pipsqueak will miss a race. Top-of-the-scoreboard excitement is in part covered by the LTB points.

- Switching to an exponential system is not going to improve the mid-low scoreboard, where the exponential converges to a linear system. It is also not going to add excitement to the top of the scoreboard, because races lack random events.

Great work guys!

Ok, here are my 3 cents. Bear in mind that I am writing on my phone, which kind of makes any serious analysis difficult.

- There is too little feedback from the target group, that is those earning low amounts of points on a regular basis. Do they like decimal points at all? Do they care whether they are ranked above a one time pipsqueak like me? What motivates them? I just do not know.

- I would suggest increasing the intercept from 12 to a higher number like 20. Then, more pipsqueaks would get full points. Consider pipsqueak X who typically ends up around place 20. Would it be a big problem if he ends up on the 15th place in a low attendance race and earns 5points? At least it would be an incentive to join races with a low attendance rate.

- Using a decreasing strictly convex.funxtion (what you call exponential) makes effort pay off. It likely takes.more effort (or time) to achieve a 1st place and a 5th place than two 3rd places. A linear scoring system does not reflect that, but the LTB helps. I do not claim this is important and should trump other considerations. I would just like to mention the point. :-)

Quote from: Duplode on December 15, 2022, 12:38:15 AMAn additional note about this idea. While starting the exponential points from 10th place isn't my favourite option at the moment (non-integer point assignments larger than 1 feel weird to me), if we were to do that it might make sense to choose an exponential such that its slope at 10th place matches the linear slope from 1st to 10th:

[url="https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10375;type=preview;file"]point-systems-exp-at-10-3.png[/url]

Quote from: Duplode on December 17, 2022, 04:05:52 AMBy the way, here's what we'd get with the cutoff-at-8th system I have suggested above. Note there are no position changes down to 13th place, and the changes that do happen are quite a bit milder:

Code Select Expand

    Räcer        Races    Pts.    Pts. (12..1)    Position Change
1    Alan Rotoi    12    585    117        0
2    Duplode        12    530    106        0
3    KyLiE        12    400    80        0
4    CTG        6    350    70        0
5    Overdrijf    12    345    69        0
5    Zapper        12    345    69        0
7    dreadnaut    12    290    58        0
8    Akoss Poo    6    250    50        0
9    Heretic        12    224    43        0
10    afullo        12    181    33        0
11    Ryoma        7    151    28.06        0
12    Friker        4    142    28        0
13    Cas        12    127    18.19        0
14    Shoegazing Leo    12    97    9.37        +4
15    Marco        6    96    15.28        0
16    Frieshansen    3    80    16        -2
17    GTAMan15    5    69    10.16        -1
18    Seeker1982    2    56    10.08        -1
19    KaoS        9    55    3.44        +1
20    Stan 286XT    12    53    1.57        +2


Slowly catching up to where the discussion currently is, I like this "hockey stick curve" compromise. (Yes, that's the official mathy term, why do you ask?) The only thing I like a bit less is the non-round numbers. Jumping from 3 to 2.15 and 1.54. So I tried if I could round-numberify this with a variant on the 521 concept. Starting at 3 is a bit awkward, so I cheated a little bit (using one step of 3) to get to a 10 step system (every ten steps is an order of magnitude smaller) that keeps ending up on as round as possible numbers.

The order I end up with is:
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.012 0.01...
(Edit: There were originally a bunch of zeroes missing from the lower end there.)

This is how it graphs out:
(https://i.postimg.cc/52Hh3srH/Hockey-stick-curves.png)
The pivot point around 3 points looks a bit janky. I can smoothen that out, but only by using less round numbers (for instance 2.5>2.4 and 2>1.9). Both hockey stick curves look pretty sweeth on a logarithmic scale though.

And that's essentially what happens here. The places 1 through 10 are competing on a linear scale, while the places 7 and below (yes, there's overlap) are competing on a roughly logarithmic scale/exponential curve/I don't know mathy terms.

Running the results from 2022 through this filter a few things become noticable:
1 The amateur league results are entirely unchanged as they never went below 3 points.
2 The top of the board is also almost entirely unaffected. A single 12th place for Usrin that counts because he also had several missed races causes the only points change in the top 11.
3 For the subtop inconsistency is punnished less than under the current system, but not rewarded. What I mean by that is this: if you always end up fourth to ninth having a few races where you're twelfth gives you less points loss than under the current system, but the lack of bonus points for the podium positions like my previous analysis had mean you can't as easily make up for that with a few exceptional results.
4 Because the half points come in starting at 2.5 rather than the 4.5 of my previous simulation the changes in the lower half are less drastic, Daniel with 6 races raced jumps up 4 places rather than 8, not ending ahead of all one time drivers, but Stan with perfect attendance does still jump 5 places up to the "mostly full time drivers" part of the board. (Okay, there is an "inconsistent pro's" section right above all the nice green numbers, but those people just need to race more. I'm talking to you, Overdrijf.)

(https://i.postimg.cc/8cjw4ybK/Hockey-stick-2022-results.png)
(The green ones are all the results with a gain of more than 2 full points compared to the current system.)


I think a hockey stick curve is a good middle ground between a linear and an exponential-ish system. The steepness of Duplode's curve might actually be most suited for our competition. Sure, one order of magnitude in 7 steps is steep, but 13th place at 1 point and 20th place at 0.1 points sounds about right, where my system's 15th place at 1 point and 25th place at 0.1 point feels maybe a little wide for a competition where this year each race was attended by 12 to 20 drivers. (Then again: the biologist in me assures me that if a niche is available it will be filled, a large score board attracts drivers.) But overall I think I'm actually in favor of a hockey stick curve now.

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 20, 2022, 10:53:53 AM

Quote from: Duplode on December 15, 2022, 12:38:15 AMAn additional note about this idea. While starting the exponential points from 10th place isn't my favourite option at the moment (non-integer point assignments larger than 1 feel weird to me), if we were to do that it might make sense to choose an exponential such that its slope at 10th place matches the linear slope from 1st to 10th:

point-systems-exp-at-10-3.png (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10375;type=preview;file)

Quote from: Duplode on December 17, 2022, 04:05:52 AMBy the way, here's what we'd get with the cutoff-at-8th system I have suggested above. Note there are no position changes down to 13th place, and the changes that do happen are quite a bit milder:

Code Select Expand

    Räcer        Races    Pts.    Pts. (12..1)    Position Change
1    Alan Rotoi    12    585    117        0
2    Duplode        12    530    106        0
3    KyLiE        12    400    80        0
4    CTG        6    350    70        0
5    Overdrijf    12    345    69        0
5    Zapper        12    345    69        0
7    dreadnaut    12    290    58        0
8    Akoss Poo    6    250    50        0
9    Heretic        12    224    43        0
10    afullo        12    181    33        0
11    Ryoma        7    151    28.06        0
12    Friker        4    142    28        0
13    Cas        12    127    18.19        0
14    Shoegazing Leo    12    97    9.37        +4
15    Marco        6    96    15.28        0
16    Frieshansen    3    80    16        -2
17    GTAMan15    5    69    10.16        -1
18    Seeker1982    2    56    10.08        -1
19    KaoS        9    55    3.44        +1
20    Stan 286XT    12    53    1.57        +2


Slowly catching up to where the discussion currently is, I like this "hockey stick curve" compromise. (Yes, that's the official mathy term, why do you ask?) The only thing I like a bit less is the non-round numbers. Jumping from 3 to 2.15 and 1.54. So I tried if I could round-numberify this with a variant on the 521 concept. Starting at 3 is a bit awkward, so I cheated a little bit (using one step of 3) to get to a 10 step system (every ten steps is an order of magnitude smaller) that keeps ending up on as round as possible numbers.

The order I end up with is:
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.12 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.12 0.1...

This is how it graphs out:
(https://i.postimg.cc/52Hh3srH/Hockey-stick-curves.png)
The pivot point around 3 points looks a bit janky. I can smoothen that out, but only by using less round numbers (for instance 2.5>2.4 and 2>1.9). Both hockey stick curves look pretty sweeth on a logarithmic scale though.

And that's essentially what happens here. The places 1 through 10 are competing on a linear scale, while the places 7 and below (yes, there's overlap) are competing on a roughly logarithmic scale/exponential curve/I don't know mathy terms.

Running the results from 2022 through this filter a few things become noticable:
1 The amateur league results are entirely unchanged as they never went below 3 points.
2 The top of the board is also almost entirely unaffected. A single 12th place for Usrin that counts because he also had several missed races causes the only points change in the top 11.
3 For the subtop inconsistency is punnished less than under the current system, but not rewarded. What I mean by that is this: if you always end up fourth to ninth having a few races where you're twelfth gives you less points loss than under the current system, but the lack of bonus points for the podium positions like my previous analysis had mean you can't as easily make up for that with a few exceptional results.
4 Because the half points come in starting at 2.5 rather than the 4.5 of my previous simulation the changes in the lower half are less drastic, Daniel with 6 races raced jumps up 4 places rather than 8, not ending ahead of all one time drivers, but Stan with perfect attendance does still jumpp 5 places up to the "mostly full time drivers" part of the board. (Okay, there is a 5 man "inconsistent pro's" section right above all the nice green numbers, but those people just need to race more. I'm talking to you, Overdrijf.)

(https://i.postimg.cc/8cjw4ybK/Hockey-stick-2022-results.png)
(The green ones are all the results with a gain of more than 2 full points compared to the current system.)


I think a hockey stick curve is a good middle ground between a linear and an exponential-ish system. The steepness of Duplode's curve might actually be most suited for our competition. Sure, one order of magnitude in 7 steps is steep, but 13th place at 1 point and 20th place at 0.1 points sounds about right, where my system's 15th place at 1 point and 25th place at 0.1 point feels maybe a little wide for a competition where this year each race was attended by 12 to 20 drivers. (Then again: the biologist in my assures me that if a niche is available it will be filled, a large score board attracts drivers.) But overall I think I'm actually in favor of a hockey stick curve now.

Nice and thoughtful analysis like always. Quick question: Couldn't your "hockey stick curve" start a bit higher than 12?

We can start at any number but Relatively speaking there is no difference.

I like overdrijf his green curve more than duplode purple one.
But I also agree that with the current attendance duplode purple is the better option.

Quote from: Argammon on December 20, 2022, 11:58:34 AMNice and thoughtful analysis like always. Quick question: Couldn't your "hockey stick curve" start a bit higher than 12?

Yes. There are essentially four things you can tweak:
1 The number at which the linear part starts. 12 feels good to me so that the lowest positions still end up around or below 1 in most months. It would to me personally feel a bit weird to have the points go from 20 to 6 on a slowish month. But it's no problem for the curve. It could be a solution if we're aiming for a system where we have a good to assign points to a large number of lower place finishers but don't want these non-linear numbers to show up too often.
2 The steepness of the linear part. So you could say start at 24 but take steps of two points. I don't currently see reasons to do this, but they presumably exist.
3 The point where you depart from the linear line and go exponential. At 1 point feels the most natural for a score board, but at that point it's almost like the current system, the curve doesn't add much, hence me choosing to follow Duplode and start at 3 points/place 10.
4 How hard the curved part curves. Although your options here are somewhat limited if you like round numbers.

So it's pretty customizable.

I think we maybe went too far :D.

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 20, 2022, 12:06:24 PMWe can start at any number but Relatively speaking there is no difference.

I like overdrijf his green curve more than duplode purple one.
But I also agree that with the current attendance duplode purple is the better option.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. My suggestion is a higher intercept together with a longer linear part. Hence, more pipsqueaks would get integers.

Maybe the 20 I mentioned earlier is exaggerated. I told you I do not have mainstream taste.  8)  But 14 or 15 may be a compromise. ;)

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 20, 2022, 01:26:49 PMI think we maybe went too far :D.

I haven't even proposed a fluctuating scale yet, like maybe a "minus 2, plus 1" system. (10 8 9 7 8 6 7 5 6 4 5 3...)

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 20, 2022, 03:32:51 PM

Quote from: alanrotoi on December 20, 2022, 01:26:49 PMI think we maybe went too far :D.

I haven't even proposed a fluctuating scale yet, like maybe a "minus 2, plus 1" system. (10 8 9 7 8 6 7 5 6 4 5 3...)

I'll pretend i didn't see this... ;)

Quote from: Argammon on December 20, 2022, 01:37:16 PM

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 20, 2022, 12:06:24 PMWe can start at any number but Relatively speaking there is no difference.

I like overdrijf his green curve more than duplode purple one.
But I also agree that with the current attendance duplode purple is the better option.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. My suggestion is a higher intercept together with a longer linear part. Hence, more pipsqueaks would get integers.

Maybe the 20 I mentioned earlier is exaggerated. I told you I do not have mainstream taste.  8)  But 14 or 15 may be a compromise. ;)

O. I see. (No that wasn't clear to me)
As someone who has (so far) always been outside of integers. With the current average participation density I don't think that it is necessary if the "hockeystick curve is implemented" but I'm not at all against it.

@Overdrijf, could you make one more table matching your "hockey stick" one, but with 12 -> 1 step 1, 0.95 -> 0.05 step 0.05?

I'd like to compare a linear + convex to a linear + linear.

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 20, 2022, 08:17:47 PM@Overdrijf, could you make one more table matching your "hockey stick" one, but with 12 -> 1 step 1, 0.95 -> 0.05 step 0.05?

I'd like to compare a linear + convex to a linear + linear.

Yeah I can do that, not right now but within a day or so.

Here's the table, I ones again marked everyone gaining 2 full points or more. The Amateur Board is not included because there are no changes to it:

(https://i.postimg.cc/3rp23NbL/Linear-linear-2022-results.png)

It was afraid it was going to feel a bit like "everyone finishing 12th place or lower gets 1 points with a little tie breaking penalty". That fortunately is not quite the case, scores of .75 and below are pretty common.

Compared to the hockey stick there is a slightly greater area at the top untouched, and the people right below that gain significantly less points. Cas no longer gets a bonus over the current system, and Leo is the highest placed pipsqueak gaining more than 2 points. Stan and Daniel sync up to gain 4.66 points and 3 places each. (But Daniel claims the moral victory for ending up between two Corks, that's a sign you did something right.) Neither of them quite close the gap to the pseudo-fulltimers, but they do move up to a slightly more reputable neighborhood.

The scores cross with the hockey stick curve at place 16, where both give 0.8 points. From that point on the linear-linear system gives more points. In the lower section of the board some people therefore gain more points than they do under the "Overdrijf hockey curve" system, the first being ZdnBurns. These are all people with 3 races or less. (Who are probably on average less interested in the end of year standings, but may or may not potentially still be more inclined to come back if they get 0.6 points than if they get 0.03 points.)

As a bonus: it isn't even that bad a curve when plotted logaritnmically...

(https://i.postimg.cc/T1fb7MvV/Linear-linear-logarithmic.png)

There is a bit of a lack of elegance (yes, I think elegance is really important, but only in graphs, and maybe ballet dancers), but it is simple to understand. The curve also extends more than far enough, and you could even tie the current 0.1-0.01 step 0.01 (or step 0.005) to the end of it if needed.

Thanks @Overdrijf, that gives me a level comparison in terms of what actually changes? Re-attaching the files here for when the external hosting disappears.

Looking at the two tables, I would push for linear-linear, at least for the next year.

Pros:
- its scale is compatible with the current points, so we can compare them to previous seasons
- it brings 13+ results closer to the top 12
- it continues rewarding consistency over one-off (see Leo above Marco, Stan above Ryoma)

Cons:
- no changes to the top 12 scores
- still lots of decimals
- inelegant :)

Neutral:
- still more "ordering" than "scoring" for 13+, but the actual battle for these pipsqueaks happens on the Amateur scoreboard

This would be an iterative step, and we can consider further changes for 2024. Before deciding anything though, I'd like to hear from @Cas, @afullo, @Shoegazing Leo, @stan286xt, @Daniel3D, ...


In the meanwhile, I'll also put out there another question: do we want a "NoRH" side-scoreboard back for 2023?

I am for linear-linear as well.

No opinion on NoRH.

Uhm... I'll have to re-read it better. It's so hot here that it's hard for me to concentrate on things that require careful analysis. But I think linear-linear sounds better, if I understood it well.

I wouldn't add NoRH, but I'm OK if it's added. I featured it in R4K because I knew that some people found it important. I'm an agnostic, so to me, NoRH doesn't really exist, as it can't be proven, ha, ha. But I don't think it hurts.

Alright, please allow me one more roll of the dice. I still think we can improve on linear-linear by adding a modest amount of non-linearity to positions beyond 12th. I'll show my favourite way of doing that, then present a couple season simulations using it, and finally compare it with some of the alternatives.

Let's start from the @dreadnaut 's premises from several posts ago (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=87873): our currently points system is broadly okay; and the main problem with it is the drop from full points at 12th to tiebreaker points at 13th is too abrupt and comes up too early on the scoreboard. One simple strategy to fix that while keeping everything else mostly unchanged is to shift the tiebreaker points further down the scoreboard, and fill the intermediate positions:

(https://i.imgur.com/q4w1gqM.png)

As to how to fill those positions, I suggest an (approximate) exponential between 12th and 24th, tweaked to get rounder values. Using @Overdrijf 's helpful framing, that is a 12-step system, as it takes 12 positions to go from 1 to 0.1. I believe this choice gives us a good balance between extending the range of meaningful points far enough down the scoreboard and keeping the relative gaps between one position and the next large enough for them to feel meaningful.

Here is the points table, split into the three regions:

FULL POINTS      TRANSITION      TIEBREAKERS
Pos.  Pts.       Pos.  Pts.      Pos.  Pts.
1     12         13    0.85      25    0.09
2     11         14    0.7       26    0.08
3     10         15    0.6       27    0.07
4     9          16    0.5       28    0.06
5     8          17    0.4       29    0.05
6     7          18    0.3       30    0.04
7     6          19    0.25      31    0.03
8     5          20    0.2       32    0.02
9     4          21    0.17      33    0.01
10    3          22    0.14
11    2          23    0.12
12    1          24    0.1

And, for the sake of a prettier visualisation, a log scale plot of it:

(https://i.imgur.com/8z8yaOS.png)

Note this is quite different from the hockey stick system Overdrijf has been looking into, as there is no attempt here to match the exponential and linear slope at their meeting point, as doing so at 12th place would have made the exponential too steep. (By the way, while I did suggest something similar to this system elsewhere in the thread, this time I considered the details much more carefully.)

Besides the balance between absolute points and relative gaps mentioned above, there are many nice little details about this system, which hopefully should help making sense of it:

• Several assignments in the transition range look easy to remember: 14th gets 0.7, 16th gets 0.5, 18th gets 0.3, 20th gets 0.2, 24th gets 0.1.
• No gaps smaller than 0.05 above 20th place.
• Starting anywhere from 12th to 16th and moving eight steps down (so that one stays within the transition range) makes the points exactly five times smaller.
• There is a symmetry of sorts in terms of orders of magnitude: we have 9 linear steps (3th to 12th) to go from 10 points to 1, then a 12-step exponential transition to 0.1 at 24th, and finally another 9 linear steps to the end at 33rd.
• 33 happens to be the number of pipsqueaks in the actual Indy 500 grid, so we even have an in-universe justification for why the tables ends at 33rd!  :D

That should be enough theory for now. Let's look at the 2022 season simulation, using the same format of the Overdrijf tests just above: 

extended-12-step-comparison-2022.png

As might be expected, we get results similar to the linear-linear ones, but somewhat less pronounced due to the non-linearity. Only Stan and Daniel get 2 or more extra points, though Leo gets very close to that (note that the three of them have raced at least half a season). In terms of positions, the main differences are that Stan doesn't overtake Ryoma (but still overtakes Erik and BJ), and that HunterBoy344 and ZdnBurns don't overtake Kaweashkar (but still overtake Shorty). The point gaps involved aren't too large, so an extra one or two favourable results could well have been enough to overcome them. One thing that doesn't change is that Daniel still ends up between Zak and BJ.

I have checked the results from 2018 to 2021 as well, and the results are consistent: the propelling effect for results beyond 12th is somewhat smaller, but remains very noticeable and, to my eyes, enough for the system to pay its weight. If you want to look for additional examples, here are summary spreadsheets with the changes in positions and real scores for the last five years: brief-system-comparisons.ods (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10411;type=preview;file)

P.S.: There are at least two interesting other ways of filling the gap between full points and tiebreakers. The simplest possibility is a triple linear system, in which we switch to 0.1 steps at 12th, and then to 0.01 steps at 21th. Alternatively, we might switch to 0.1 steps at 12th, then to 0.05 steps at, say, 18th, and finally to 0.01 steps at 24th, thus ending up with a quadruple linear system. The main disadvantage of triple linear is that we reach 0.01 and the tiebreakers a little too early, while the main disadvantage of quadruple linear is that it is perhaps a little too inelegant. Both of those systems behave pretty well otherwise, being pretty similar in results to the 12-step exponential transition.

P.P.S.: I'll also attach the latest version of my simulator spreadsheets, in case you feel like trying it: season-simulator-2022.ods

Thank you Dup! Looking at your table, as it sometimes happens when one has made up their mind, I see a confirmation of my point: non-linearity rewards the exception — two examples can be Ryoma above Stan, or Kaweashkar above HunterBoy and ZdnBurns. That goes agains what I would like to try, which is reward consistency in the lower parts of the scoreboard.

I'll be a bit dictatorly this time, and choose linear-linear for 2023. And 2024 we can go exponential for the first 4 spot, linear 5-12, reduced linear 13+ ;D 💥

Good choice dreadnaut.
I don't think there is really a wrong choice in the ideas, the all feel like improvement, just different flavors.

How about the cars for 2023.
I would opt against one of Ryoma this time because a lot of them feel rushed and unfinished.

Unless someone can name a hidden gem among them..

There are a lot of new cars to choose from.

This all moot and already decided, but I like arguing about graphs, so i'm going to do it.

Quote from: Duplode on December 22, 2022, 08:27:06 AMThe simplest possibility is a triple linear system, in which we switch to 0.1 steps at 12th, and then to 0.01 steps at 21th.

I actually kind of like this option. It's essentially the same type of system as the 521 thing, but with less granularity. Instead of making the steps 3ROOT10 times smaller every time the total value has gotten 3ROOT10 times smaller the steps get 10 times smaller every time the total value has gotten 10 times smaller. The curve is more consistent and it gives less of a bump in score to the really low positions relative to the low midfield than switching to steps of 0.05, so places 12 and just below are more worth fighting for. It's infinitely scalable too, after 0.01 you get 0.001 etc. Even if it would be more theoretically consistent if the positions above 10 points would get 20 and 30 points rather than 11 and 12.

One option that I wouldn't dare propose with a straight face but that's fun to think about is the intermediate, a system based on the regular second power root of ten, using steps of 1 and 0.3. (10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 1 0.9 0.8...) I suspect it would graph pretty cleanly. And 14 steps for an order of magnitude is pretty reasonable too. The reason I wouldn't pitch it with a straight face is that the steps of 3 just make such a mess of non-round numbers.

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 22, 2022, 12:00:47 PMAnd 2024 we can go exponential for the first 4 spot, linear 5-12, reduced linear 13+ ;D 💥

Nah, we should probably refrain from changing every aspect every year. I'll be back to argue points systems for the 2028 season. Next year we'll do the number of cars or the team rules or the race lengths or a bonus for automatic gears or something. Not to mention side score boards for NoRH, GAR, on road RH, same car all season and more.

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 22, 2022, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 22, 2022, 12:00:47 PMAnd 2024 we can go exponential for the first 4 spot, linear 5-12, reduced linear 13+ ;D 💥

Nah, we should probably refrain from changing every aspect every year.

Oh, I was actually serious! We are changing the bottom of the score system this year, but we could change the top next time: introduce non-linearity to heat up the battle for the championship, while keeping the mid-low scoreboard compatible.

I'm open to changing multiple things, as long it is still possible to observe the effect of each change separately.

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 22, 2022, 12:00:47 PMLooking at your table, as it sometimes happens when one has made up their mind, I see a confirmation of my point: non-linearity rewards the exception — two examples can be Ryoma above Stan, or Kaweashkar above HunterBoy and ZdnBurns. That goes agains what I would like to try, which is reward consistency in the lower parts of the scoreboard.

That's fair. I would just note that, more than the non-linearity itself, the big discontinuity at 12th place is to blame here. There's no good way to avoid that discontinuity while keeping the 1st-12th linear range as it currently exists, though adopting a very gentle linear slope for the further positions will provide some compensation for those who take part in lots of races over the season. I sense a hockey curve system, with the cutoff being around 8th or 10th, should be able to minimise this distortion. That's a matter for next year, though  :) I'm happy enough with having helped to put the point system back on the agenda -- and anyway I still have a few new cars to test!

And for the cars rules, what about a "ban a car rule"? The track designer could ban a car for his race.
For example:

• A track designer can ban a car for his track
• Any car can't be banned more than (two or three times maybe?)

Also to complement this rule the championship could extend the car limit in one extra car.

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 21, 2022, 06:49:32 PMBefore deciding anything though, I'd like to hear from @Cas, @afullo, @Shoegazing Leo, @stan286xt, @Daniel3D, ...

Sorry but I have been particularly busy in the latest few days, so I had not the time to analyze properly the various options...

Quote from: dreadnaut on December 21, 2022, 06:49:32 PMdo we want a "NoRH" side-scoreboard back for 2023?

That's not something I'd be keen on.  Personally, I'd prefer to focus on the main competition.  Besides, we have Race For Kicks for that.

Hello everyone,

first of all, I would like to wish you a merry Christmas.  :)

I was thinking it would be nice to post a short teaser on the upcoming season on the main page of Zakstunts. The teaser could contain details like when the new season is going to start, the car bonuses for the first track etc. I am hoping this would attract the interest of new pipsqueaks, who may be browsing the page between Christmas and new year's eve.

On Alan's idea... it's definitely something to think about, but very carefully. Being able to ban a car is a great power. I'd say, for example, that if a track designer chooses to ban one car, then he/she can't change any bonus values. This I suggest because frequently, bonus tweaking serves precisely the purpose of virtually banning or securing the participation of a certain car, so if you do it one way, you can't do it another.

Another thing to consider is why somebody would want to ban a certain car. The most common reason is to prevent PG races. I usually "ban" slow cars on my tracks or make fast cars more competitive because I like designing fast tracks and I feel that my creation ends up being very boring if a slow car ends up being the "car of the race", but I think my case is not common. Now, for PG, everybody will want to ban the Indy most of the time, but for slow cars, there are many. I'd say at most, a car should be banned twice in a season and a banned car should accumulate bonus just like unused cars do.

Quote from: Cas on December 27, 2022, 06:54:40 PMOn Alan's idea... it's definitely something to think about, but very carefully. Being able to ban a car is a great power. I'd say, for example, that if a track designer chooses to ban one car, then he/she can't change any bonus values. This I suggest because frequently, bonus tweaking serves precisely the purpose of virtually banning or securing the participation of a certain car, so if you do it one way, you can't do it another.

Another thing to consider is why somebody would want to ban a certain car. The most common reason is to prevent PG races. I usually "ban" slow cars on my tracks or make fast cars more competitive because I like designing fast tracks and I feel that my creation ends up being very boring if a slow car ends up being the "car of the race", but I think my case is not common. Now, for PG, everybody will want to ban the Indy most of the time, but for slow cars, there are many. I'd say at most, a car should be banned twice in a season and a banned car should accumulate bonus just like unused cars do.

I like the fixes. We should brain this idea but for a possible implementation in 2024.

True. With all these details and with the many more that surely can still come up, it's better to have it well polished for implementation, if that is done.

Suggestion for a new whole bunch of rules that I don't want to fully derail this thread: Side competition proposal: Powergear Cup (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=4064.0).

Quote from: Daniel3D on December 30, 2022, 11:06:07 PM

Quote from: Overdrijf on December 30, 2022, 08:48:33 PM

Quote from: Cas on December 30, 2022, 07:55:21 PMHow can we make it profitable and at the same time, not make it easier for PG surprises?  I ask this because I love the Indy.

The easiest way might be to include a custom car "non-PG Indy", with both its weight (determines PG) and power curve slightly lowered or raised. Or, somewhat close, we have several custom F1 cars at this point...

I was thinking the same. What about the mp4, Lola or Penske?

All other solutions are kinda useless. Knowing of is possible doesn't mean anything to me because i can't drive PG. So, surprise or not, that makes no difference.

Maybe we could exclude the indy for a year. I know that it's against tradition of including all original cars. It's just a thought... There are other PG cars,

12 days to the start of the race.
It's time we reach some kind of consensus.

Do we add a fast Indy like car to the pack so we have a fast alternative if the PG cars are out of reach? Could be fun to have.


Can we park the indy for a year and see if that has a positive impact on the competition?
We could add another PG cars like the Packard eight as competition. Less powerful but an new toy for PG enthusiasts.

Other options for car's?
Now is the time to say it  8)

Quote from: Daniel3D on January 04, 2023, 02:28:03 PMCan we park the indy for a year and see if that has a positive impact on the competition?
We could add another PG cars like the Packard eight as competition. Less powerful but an new toy for PG enthusiasts.

I would not replace the Indy by another PG car. The Indy is a big favorite, it's the car, taking that away while keeping the same number of potentially problematic cars would not be my preference. Just adding more PG cars also seems like maybe not the best way to prevent PG surprises.

Okay, here are my car suggestions:

• Chevrolet Corvette CERV III
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=3737.0) (car attached below, ICYMI)
• De Tomaso Pantera
• McLaren Honda MP4/4

This was a hard list to make! There's at least one more full set (or two, accounting for Ryoma's cars) that I'd be happy to see on track this year.

Quote from: Duplode on January 06, 2023, 12:17:56 AMOkay, here are my car suggestions:

• Chevrolet Corvette CERV III
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=3737.0) (car attached below, ICYMI)
• De Tomaso Pantera
• McLaren Honda MP4/4

This was a hard list to make!

I second this list. 100%.
Thank you for reading my mind  8)

I haven't tried the Challenger and the Pantero, but between those two new to Zakstunts, keeping the CERV III, the non-PG F1 car and then the Mercedes in the "other fast car" slot this feels like a good list.

EDIT: as for potential starting coëfficients:
CERV is currently on the list, so continues with +5. Which is a bit low for it, but that's the treatment all the original cars get too.
Last time the Mercedes got used it was at +7, which is also what the Jaguar was at last time it got used. The Mercedes ended at +3 at the end of 2021. So... anywhere between a nice round 0 and continuing at +4 would probably be good. +4 does feel a bit like an invitation for ealy season use though, 0 puts it above the current place of the IMSA cars but below the CERV and Corvette.
MP4/4 saw some use in races in 2014 at a whopping 13%, and won at 7% in 2013 (Although this was a season where the Jaguar got up as high as 28%). In 2018 it spent all season getting up from -47% to -14%, not seeing any real use. I should probably actually redrive this one for a bit, I always forget how fast it feels. But a guess for now... maybe -10%? That puts it 6 higher than the Indy last time it saw use, but also a bit lower than the IMSA cars, and at +1 per month it should almost guarantee use within a year.
The other two, no idea. Maybe around +5, +10 or maybe even +15%? Probably not higher than that, based on the vague image I have of these cars in my head. Were they featured in the CCC this year?

Quotebased on the vague image I have of these cars in my head. Were they featured in the CCC this year?

The Dodge was for sure.

Quote from: Duplode on January 06, 2023, 12:17:56 AMOkay, here are my car suggestions:

• Chevrolet Corvette CERV III
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=3737.0) (car attached below, ICYMI)
• De Tomaso Pantera
• McLaren Honda MP4/4

Cerv iii, mclaren honda, dodge challenger and mercedes are all over 195 mph at top speed. They are different but all fast cars.

Ps: I can't remember how challenger is. What ctg did and which was the ryoma's part? For sure ryoma made the dashboard. I just hope he didn't touch the performance.

Ps 2: ok ryoma did the dashboard and maybe touched the performance a bit. Cool for me 😄

Quote from: alanrotoi on January 06, 2023, 04:35:44 PMCerv iii, mclaren honda, dodge challenger and mercedes are all over 195 mph at top speed. They are different but all fast cars.

The Challenger is on the border though -- closer to Acura or Skyline than to GTO or F40.

Quote from: Overdrijf on January 06, 2023, 11:05:34 AMEDIT: as for potential starting coëfficients: [...]

Given the current bonuses, something around +15 would probably work for both Challenger and Pantera (the latter perhaps a bit higher still). -10 sounds about right for the MP4/4.

Quote from: Duplode on January 06, 2023, 10:52:32 PMThe Challenger is on the border though -- closer to Acura or Skyline than to GTO or F40.

It is like Ferrari GTO

Dodge Challenger performance:
0-60: 4.80 mph
0-100: 10.85 mph
Flat track top speed:    164 mph
Real top speed :    200 mph

I'm not against the application of this car just pointing that we won't use any slow car with this list.


This is your list then:

(https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10465;image)

Quote from: alanrotoi on January 07, 2023, 12:36:52 AM

Quote from: Duplode on January 06, 2023, 10:52:32 PMThe Challenger is on the border though -- closer to Acura or Skyline than to GTO or F40.

It is like Ferrari GTO

Dodge Challenger performance:
0-60: 4.80 mph
0-100: 10.85 mph
Flat track top speed:    164 mph
Real top speed :    200 mph

I'm not against the application of this car just pointing that we won't use any slow car with this list.


This is your list then:

(https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10465;image)

I would like to have one or two slow cars included. ;)

The original cars are included 😁

Quote from: Daniel3D on January 07, 2023, 11:19:42 PMThe original cars are included 😁

Oh, I was thinking about cars like Plymouth Fury or Ford Thunderbird. I love these old cars.  8)

Quote from: Duplode on January 06, 2023, 12:17:56 AM

• Chevrolet Corvette CERV III
• Mercedes-Benz 190 E DTM
• Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?topic=3737.0) (car attached below, ICYMI)
• De Tomaso Pantera
• McLaren Honda MP4/4

I like this list, but I was wondering if we want to keep the Skyline around for another season, since it didn't get much use in 2022. Possibly instead of the McLaren?

Quote from: dreadnaut on January 08, 2023, 05:34:48 PMI like this list, but I was wondering if we want to keep the Skyline around for another season, since it didn't get much use in 2022. Possibly instead of the McLaren?

I'm not sure if this would work well. In this list, the McLaren plays the role of an F1/Indy class car to give PG cars some extra competition, along the lines of what Daniel and Overdrijf have suggested (https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=88120). Replacing it with the Skyline would mean three custom cars roughly in the same class (Challenger, Pantera and Skyline). The alternative would be replacing either the Challenger or the Pantera, but that would leave us with just one new car. Furthermore, I think the Challenger and the Pantera differ more from each other than the Skyline from either of them, so swapping either for the SKyline would make the list a little less diverse.

Quote from: Argammon on January 08, 2023, 08:55:25 AMOh, I was thinking about cars like Plymouth Fury or Ford Thunderbird. I love these old cars.  8)

These are incredibly cool cars! If I were to suggest a slow car for this year, it would have been the Thunderbird. In fact, I think my list would work fine if the Pantera were replaced with the Thunderbird -- as long as we wouldn't mind introducing two new four-geared cars at once.

Edit, after thinking a little bit further about it: @dreadnaut If you think it would be preferable to have a little more stability and change only three cars from 2022 to 2023 (instead of four, as in my list), we might replace the Pantera with the Thunderbird, and either the Challenger or the Mercedes with the Skyline. Though these aren't my favourite options (I feel we have too many good options to add just one new car, and I'd like to see the Mercedes getting a second chance), they would result in a balanced enough list.

Quote from: Duplode on January 08, 2023, 06:32:14 PMI'm not sure if this would work well. In this list, the McLaren plays the role of an F1/Indy class car to give PG cars some extra competition

Oh, I had missed that, makes sense. One last question: McLaren or... Lola Cosworth?

Quote from: dreadnaut on January 08, 2023, 10:50:48 PM

Quote from: Duplode on January 08, 2023, 06:32:14 PMI'm not sure if this would work well. In this list, the McLaren plays the role of an F1/Indy class car to give PG cars some extra competition

Oh, I had missed that, makes sense. One last question: McLaren or... Lola Cosworth?

The McLaren has featured already. It's a lot more powerful than the indy (except for PG)
The Lola is more like the Indy but without PG.
I like the McLaren a lot, but the Lola is better for the competition I think.

A few days left. Dreadnaut, what is your verdict  8)

I agree it'd be interesting to include the Lola.

I would like to see the thunderbird and the Pantera. I would not mind if the challenger has to wait.  :)

New season is up, with the custom cars line-up discussed earlier:

(https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=10465;image)

We'll need to side pictures, for the new cars entering the competition: @alanrotoi's Pantera and @CTG's  Challenger 🙏

Scoring system updated to "linear-linear" (12 -> 1 step 1, 0.95 -> 0.05 step 0.05, 0.00), but no other changes for this year 🏁

All right, here we go!  8)

Quote from: dreadnaut on January 15, 2023, 04:10:16 PMWe'll need to side pictures, for the new cars entering the competition: @alanrotoi's Pantera and @CTG's  Challenger 🙏

Already on the way -- Alan has taken the screenshots, and I can get them uploaded.

Quote from: Duplode on January 15, 2023, 04:15:03 PMAll right, here we go!  8)

Quote from: dreadnaut on January 15, 2023, 04:10:16 PMWe'll need to side pictures, for the new cars entering the competition: @alanrotoi's Pantera and @CTG's  Challenger 🙏

It was a co-production with Ryoma.

Quote from: CTG on January 15, 2023, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: Duplode on January 15, 2023, 04:15:03 PMAll right, here we go!  8)

Quote from: dreadnaut on January 15, 2023, 04:10:16 PMWe'll need to side pictures, for the new cars entering the competition: @alanrotoi's Pantera and @CTG's  Challenger 🙏

It was a co-production with Ryoma.

It is still your car. Your idea.
I my view he contributed to help finish it.

Was there a permanent change to the car coefficients for some reason, or were the temporary bonuses just applied a bit odd?

I had to adapt the coefficients a bit, as it happens every January. The sum of coefficients is costant, so by removing cars worth X points, I have to distribute X points back. Probably more visible this year, as Skyline + Stratos accounted for 47 points by themselves, and McLaren and Mercedes went in with negative bonuses.

Quote from: Daniel3D on January 15, 2023, 04:51:14 PM

Quote from: CTG on January 15, 2023, 04:31:45 PMIt was a co-production with Ryoma.

It is still your car. Your idea.
I my view he contributed to help finish it.

Ryoma himself pointed that out to me when I added the Challenger to that car testing thread. In any case, I'll add both credits to the Wiki and, when the time for that comes, to the Archive car readme. Congratulations on making it to the final list, @CTG ! :)