- Welcome to Stunts Forum.
Recent posts
#21
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by Chulk - December 02, 2024, 06:03:04 PMQuote from: Duplode on November 29, 2024, 02:25:04 AMWith the (1,2,3,5,8,13) weights, the relative change in gains between e.g. 1st and 3rd is similar to that between 3rd and 5th, which seems appropriate to my eyes.You can never go wrong with Fibonacci!
#22
General Chat - ZSC / Re: Statistics!
Last post by alanrotoi - December 01, 2024, 06:37:24 PMThere are 849 podiums by 43 pipsqueaks in ZakStunts (alias added and ghosts fixed).
- 779 of them belongs to the 24 race winners
- 664 podiums from the 13 season champions
- 68 podiums from the 19 pipsqueaks who never got the gold
#23
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by Duplode - November 29, 2024, 10:34:53 PMQuote from: dreadnaut on November 29, 2024, 09:49:17 PMI can put some time aside this week-end to implement a rough version 🛠
That would be very nice, thank you!
#24
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by dreadnaut - November 29, 2024, 09:49:17 PMQuote from: Duplode on November 29, 2024, 02:25:04 AMSimulating how past races would have played out under the system, something I plan to do in the near future, should be one of the useful things for spotting pitfalls of that kind.
I can put some time aside this week-end to implement a rough version 🛠
#25
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by Duplode - November 29, 2024, 02:25:04 AMQuote from: alanrotoi on November 28, 2024, 05:52:35 PM- How can we test the system to avoid that this system favors the top pipsqueaks (those who usually gets the 80% or 90% of the extra points)?
Simulating how past races would have played out under the system, something I plan to do in the near future, should be one of the useful things for spotting pitfalls of that kind. Up to now, I don't think we have paid a lot of attention to the dynamics of position changes below the top. Simulations could help identifying some of the possible scenarios, in particular when it comes to how the extra points would be distributed.
Quote from: Argammon on November 28, 2024, 06:35:58 PMDisadvantage of the change: When the weights are close, the top pipsqueaks have less of an incentive to try to take the lead because sitting in 3rd position may be good enough.
This also applies to the lower positions (say, going for a podium place versus staying in 5th). PTB does make it a bit more affordable to be conservative about pushing for the higher positions. Since making it too affordable would be self-defeating when it comes to making races more exciting, it's probably better to err on the side of larger gaps -- which are anyway easier to justify for bonuses than for the main scoreboard. With the (1,2,3,5,8,13) weights, the relative change in gains between e.g. 1st and 3rd is similar to that between 3rd and 5th, which seems appropriate to my eyes.
#26
Prediction Games / Re: Zct 281 - Eternal wait - P...
Last post by Argammon - November 28, 2024, 06:39:33 PMI am a bit late to the party, but here is mine:
1. Duplode
2. Argammon
3. Alanrotoi
4. Frieshansen
5. Spoonboy
6. Akoss Poo
7. Mortimer McMire
8. Zapper
9. Overdrijf
10. Ryoma
11. Erik Barros
12. Dreadnaut
1. Duplode
2. Argammon
3. Alanrotoi
4. Frieshansen
5. Spoonboy
6. Akoss Poo
7. Mortimer McMire
8. Zapper
9. Overdrijf
10. Ryoma
11. Erik Barros
12. Dreadnaut
#27
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by Argammon - November 28, 2024, 06:35:58 PMI like the system suggested by @Duplode above.
@alanrotoi: Duplode's system is better for the sub-top pipsqueaks than the current one without a doubt. One way of going even more in that direction would be to reduce the weights from (1,2,3,5,8,13) to (1,2,3,4,5,6).
Advantage of the change: The sub-top pipsqueaks need less hours to get points.
Disadvantage of the change: When the weights are close, the top pipsqueaks have less of an incentive to try to take the lead because sitting in 3rd position may be good enough.
Which of the two (advantage vs disadvantage) should we put more weight on?
@alanrotoi: Duplode's system is better for the sub-top pipsqueaks than the current one without a doubt. One way of going even more in that direction would be to reduce the weights from (1,2,3,5,8,13) to (1,2,3,4,5,6).
Advantage of the change: The sub-top pipsqueaks need less hours to get points.
Disadvantage of the change: When the weights are close, the top pipsqueaks have less of an incentive to try to take the lead because sitting in 3rd position may be good enough.
Which of the two (advantage vs disadvantage) should we put more weight on?
#28
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by alanrotoi - November 28, 2024, 05:52:35 PMOk this is getting better! From a scientific point of view, to strenghten an idea we must ask it questions. If it answers right it gets stronger, a stronger truth. So don't get me wrong if I try to find glitches or holes.
- How can we test the system to avoid that this system favors the top pipsqueaks (those who usually gets the 80% or 90% of the extra points)?
I mean, I don't want to creat an even more unreacheable elite.
I like the idea of the system and its soul. We have to find a way to test it before implementing.
- How can we test the system to avoid that this system favors the top pipsqueaks (those who usually gets the 80% or 90% of the extra points)?
I mean, I don't want to creat an even more unreacheable elite.
I like the idea of the system and its soul. We have to find a way to test it before implementing.
#29
Competition and Website / Re: Position Time Bonus
Last post by Duplode - November 28, 2024, 04:30:37 AMAfter some more consideration (see the final part of my previous reply), I feel a chunkier, less granular system, as encouraged by @Argammon and @dreadnaut , would be an improvement over my initial proposal. That being so, here is an amended version of it:
Chunky PTB
Position time bonus is earned for time spent in the top 6 positions, with the gains being weighed by position.
Bonuses are granted in three steps (contrast with the two steps of the current LTB system, or the forty of the granular system in the opening post):
For each position, the weights are applied through the number of hours needed to reach the next step. Earning PTB +0.5 requires:
(Note that we're back to multiples of 12, in contrast to the multiples of 14 in the initial proposal.)
To simplify the description, I will use "stunts hours" to mean the equivalent for PTB purposes of an hour in the lead. 1 stunts hour, then amounts to 1 (real) hour in 1st place, or 2 hours in 2nd, and so forth. We can, then, say that PTB +0.5 is given at 120 stunts hours. Following the same proportion, PTB +1 is given at 240 stunts hours, and PTB +2 at 480 stunts hours
There is partial carryover of excess hours: unused stunts hours are transferred to the next race as long as PTB +1 hasn't been reached. (Note the current LTB system handles carryover in pretty much the same way, with the final +2 step having to be reached without the help of carryover.)
Within a race, stunts hours are conserved when the scoreboard changes. For instance, a pipsqueak that spends 160 hours in fifth place will have earned 160 / 8 = 20 stunts hours, needing a further 100 Stunts hours to get PTB +0.5 (in fifth place, that amounts to 800 real hours). Should they move up to second, the situation in terms of stunts hours remain the same, and so they will only need 100 × 2 = 200 real hours in second place (instead of 240) to get PTB +0.5.
Notes
This revised PTB system is quite straightforwardly an extension of the current LTB system, and so much of the intuition about its workings should remain relevant, including when it comes to tactics. In addition to PTB +1 and PTB +2 steps with partial carryover, the proportion of 240 (stunts) hours for each whole point is also retained: since the reintroduction of carryover makes fine tuning of bonus window sizes less critical, we can afford going back to more familiar numbers.
Besides the extension down the scoreboard, the other significant change relative to the current system is the introduction of the PTB +0.5 step. I see that as necessary to keep the system appealing for the entire top 6. In particular:
Adding the PTB +0.5 step has at least one more major advantage: it would make battles for the lead early in a race more likely to be meaningful on their own, rather than as preparation for something else that might happen after the public days end (or many races later, or never). Furthermore, smaller amounts of carryover (with PTB +0.5, 119 stunts hours is the maximum that can be transferred between races) should make that mechanic easier to grasp and keep track of.
Wrapping it up for now, some detail on how stunts hours are to be added to each pipsqueak's total. The approach I suggest is to, after each real hour, add the fraction of a stunts hour corresponding to the position (one stunts hour for 1st place, half a stunts hour for 2nd, and so on). That is in contrast with only adding whole stunts hours (one stunts hour after one real hour for 1st, two real hours for 2nd, etc.), which would lead to needless waste of hours. Internally (that is, without showing it directly on the site to pipsqueaks), the counter might even be kept as an integer, with the increment for each stunts hour being 1560, the least common multiple of the position weights. 1560 is divisible by 60, so an internal counter like that can be easily converted to stunts hours and minutes for display on the site.
Chunky PTB
Position time bonus is earned for time spent in the top 6 positions, with the gains being weighed by position.
Bonuses are granted in three steps (contrast with the two steps of the current LTB system, or the forty of the granular system in the opening post):
- A first step of 0.5 point, or PTB +0.5;
- Another step of 0.5 point, or PTB +1 in total; and
- A final step of 1 point, or PTB +2 in total.
For each position, the weights are applied through the number of hours needed to reach the next step. Earning PTB +0.5 requires:
- 1st place: PTB +0.5 at 120 hours (1 × 120)
- 2nd place: PTB +0.5 at 240 hours (2 × 120)
- 3rd place: PTB +0.5 at 360 hours (3 × 120)
- 4th place: PTB +0.5 at 600 hours (5 × 120)
- 5th place: PTB +0.5 at 960 hours (8 × 120)
- 6th place: PTB +0.5 at 1560 hours (13 × 120)
(Note that we're back to multiples of 12, in contrast to the multiples of 14 in the initial proposal.)
To simplify the description, I will use "stunts hours" to mean the equivalent for PTB purposes of an hour in the lead. 1 stunts hour, then amounts to 1 (real) hour in 1st place, or 2 hours in 2nd, and so forth. We can, then, say that PTB +0.5 is given at 120 stunts hours. Following the same proportion, PTB +1 is given at 240 stunts hours, and PTB +2 at 480 stunts hours
There is partial carryover of excess hours: unused stunts hours are transferred to the next race as long as PTB +1 hasn't been reached. (Note the current LTB system handles carryover in pretty much the same way, with the final +2 step having to be reached without the help of carryover.)
Within a race, stunts hours are conserved when the scoreboard changes. For instance, a pipsqueak that spends 160 hours in fifth place will have earned 160 / 8 = 20 stunts hours, needing a further 100 Stunts hours to get PTB +0.5 (in fifth place, that amounts to 800 real hours). Should they move up to second, the situation in terms of stunts hours remain the same, and so they will only need 100 × 2 = 200 real hours in second place (instead of 240) to get PTB +0.5.
Notes
This revised PTB system is quite straightforwardly an extension of the current LTB system, and so much of the intuition about its workings should remain relevant, including when it comes to tactics. In addition to PTB +1 and PTB +2 steps with partial carryover, the proportion of 240 (stunts) hours for each whole point is also retained: since the reintroduction of carryover makes fine tuning of bonus window sizes less critical, we can afford going back to more familiar numbers.
Besides the extension down the scoreboard, the other significant change relative to the current system is the introduction of the PTB +0.5 step. I see that as necessary to keep the system appealing for the entire top 6. In particular:
- PTB +1 requires 720 (real) hours at 3rd place, which is more than the 600-hour window of a race. Depending on carryover to earn any points after spending a whole race in 3rd place would feel like a betrayal of the podium time bonus heritage of the system
- Similarly, PTB +1 calls for 3120 hours at 6th place. That amounts to more than five races, and is far too long for a first step in a system meant to make bonus battles more accessible.
Adding the PTB +0.5 step has at least one more major advantage: it would make battles for the lead early in a race more likely to be meaningful on their own, rather than as preparation for something else that might happen after the public days end (or many races later, or never). Furthermore, smaller amounts of carryover (with PTB +0.5, 119 stunts hours is the maximum that can be transferred between races) should make that mechanic easier to grasp and keep track of.
Wrapping it up for now, some detail on how stunts hours are to be added to each pipsqueak's total. The approach I suggest is to, after each real hour, add the fraction of a stunts hour corresponding to the position (one stunts hour for 1st place, half a stunts hour for 2nd, and so on). That is in contrast with only adding whole stunts hours (one stunts hour after one real hour for 1st, two real hours for 2nd, etc.), which would lead to needless waste of hours. Internally (that is, without showing it directly on the site to pipsqueaks), the counter might even be kept as an integer, with the increment for each stunts hour being 1560, the least common multiple of the position weights. 1560 is divisible by 60, so an internal counter like that can be easily converted to stunts hours and minutes for display on the site.
#30
Stunts Questions / Re: How, who and when? How co...
Last post by alanrotoi - November 28, 2024, 03:35:33 AMOoh! So when a friend gave me a Stunts copy in 1993 it was incomplete (some jaguar files were missing) but it was ok about Helens.trk! Just wow!