News:

Herr Otto Partz says you're all nothing but pipsqueaks!

Main Menu

ZakStunts 2013 pointsystem

Started by CTG, December 01, 2012, 12:18:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Friker

Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

ENDURANCE BONUS: I think we should change it to 3 races (same amount of races which results won't count) and 1-2-3 or maybe 1-2-4. This should be taken a little further, maybe by stating a replay must be 'X'% of the winning replay (to avoid obvious listfillers or that circle around the finish line CTG mentioned) or at least 2 replays/month (or both, to avoid 2 circles around the finish line)

What do you have against listfillers? Zak is doing that constantly, everybody knows he doesn't have time to do any better, everybody's fine with that. So what? Everybody has the same opportunity to send only a listfiller, if he wants to. Ok, calm down Friker.. :D

"X" percent of the winning replay is a very bad idea. See dstien.

Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
PS: Friker's idea of registration in the 1st week sounds good, but the problem with that is most of us have jobs/university/family and such, and that makes it hard to know in advance if we'll have some free time, even on weekends.

Well, a listfiller is a solution. Create a 1 noRH lap is a 10 minutes work and in most cases it is also a big fun. :) And don't tell you have not 10 minutes in a month.

BonzaiJoe

Quote from: Friker on December 05, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
I'm starting to get the feeling the best way is to do it without any bonuses..

Another funny idea without bonuses: pipsqueaks should sign them on a participants list in the first week and only those will be evaluated at the end. For me time hiding is not a problem (whole ltb thing). I have more difficulties with "player hiding" - I want to see who is racing and who is not. :) (you should register to a competition in advance in the real world also. registered players with unsent replays should be penalized.)

I have to say that's the worst idea yet. If anything, we do not need rules that reduce the number of pipsqueaks to a minimum and keep new pipsqueaks away.
I hope we will keep rules as simple as possible. No set of rules is perfect anyway, and complicated rules will confuse people and reduce participation.
In my dreams: Kalpen rules (10-9-8-...), LTB bonus 1 point, (or perhaps 2 and 1 point), 3 worst results don't count.
But we can't be quite sure.


alanrotoi

Agree with BJ, easy rules please.

Duplode

On the subject of fancy bonuses, I like the idea of SDR style checkpoints (see Chulk's post). Akoss' second suggestion (bonuses for any early strong replays) sounds nice too, but would likely be hard to get right. On the other hand, I do wonder, alongside BJ and Alan, about what is the point of diminishing returns of complex rules, after which either people don't care any more or there is no noticeable effect on the results.

Quote from: Akoss Poo on December 05, 2012, 08:53:02 AM
- even who reaches a maximum bonus in a month (including endurance bonus fraction) and finishes second should not score higher than a winner who sends his replay in the last minute (with having only this replay in the whole year)... the winner should be the winner on a track, and on the final scoreboard as well

I suppose that implies moving away from a linear scoring system, and that, I believe, would be a sound move. Our complaints and worries about bonuses being too strong stem at least in part from the fact that gaps at the top are too small.

Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
ENDURANCE BONUS: I think we should change it to 3 races (same amount of races which results won't count) and 1-2-3 or maybe 1-2-4.

I agree with you and BJ in that dropping 3 races is better than 2 or 4. As for the bonuses, with 1-2-3 do you mean the awarded EB in each round or the accumulated points (that is, one point per round, adding up to 3 points)? 
 

Chulk

Quote from: Duplode on December 06, 2012, 04:28:37 AM
As for the bonuses, with 1-2-3 do you mean the awarded EB in each round or the accumulated points (that is, one point per round, adding up to 3 points)?
Per race
Yes, it is me. No, I'm not back at racing (for now...)

alanrotoi


CTG

3403,98 km

Krys TOFF

Quote from: CTG on December 10, 2012, 09:53:50 AM
Quote from: alanrotoi on December 06, 2012, 04:25:33 PM
per replay sent  ;D

per forum messages, please ;D
lol  ;D

I'm not really active but here is my 2 cents :
- any LTB is globally a good idea to keep pipsqueaks active along the month instead of racing only during quiet days
- I agree with Akoss on this point : race winner with no bonus should get more points than 2nd driver with bonus(es).
- linear point system is not good for podiumers. In FTT competition (I abandonned suddenly when life had its own priorities, sorry again) point system was that last driver would get 1 point, and all pipsqueaks will get 1 more point than the pipsqueaks behind them, except the 2nd who will get 2 points more than the 3rd driver and the winner who will get 2 points more than the 2nd driver. That kind of system could be adapted, and it would proably be easier to understand for newcomers than 0.1, 0.09, 0.08... points given for pipsqueaks 13th to last.

This system has 2 benefits IMO :
- winning is rewarded better than with a constant point system like Kalpen competition, because winning has to be rewarded,
- winning versus 5 pipsqueaks is rewarded less than winning versus 10 pipsqueaks, because it's easier to win a 5 players race.

This system has also some weaknesses :
- ending 4th in a 10 players race will give as much points than winning of a 5-players race (7 points, without any bonus), which is far from perfect,
- maybe an average finish rank should compensate the system (a kind of "opposition level bonus), because a 5-players win versus Ayrton+Renato+Argy+Duplode (or CTG, or BJ, ... no offence, it's just an example ;)) is an exploit compared to winning a 10-players win versus 9 guys as crappy as I am (especially now after almost 3 years of non-competition and a game still not running fluently on my current computer). :p.


zaqrack

Quote from: Duplode on December 06, 2012, 04:28:37 AM
On the subject of fancy bonuses, I like the idea of SDR style checkpoints (see Chulk's post). Akoss' second suggestion (bonuses for any early strong replays) sounds nice too, but would likely be hard to get right. On the other hand, I do wonder, alongside BJ and Alan, about what is the point of diminishing returns of complex rules, after which either people don't care any more or there is no noticeable effect on the results.

Quote from: Akoss Poo on December 05, 2012, 08:53:02 AM
- even who reaches a maximum bonus in a month (including endurance bonus fraction) and finishes second should not score higher than a winner who sends his replay in the last minute (with having only this replay in the whole year)... the winner should be the winner on a track, and on the final scoreboard as well

I suppose that implies moving away from a linear scoring system, and that, I believe, would be a sound move. Our complaints and worries about bonuses being too strong stem at least in part from the fact that gaps at the top are too small.
Not necessarily. non-integer bonuses are possible (and we saw it happen in the past)

Quote from: Duplode on December 06, 2012, 04:28:37 AM
Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
ENDURANCE BONUS: I think we should change it to 3 races (same amount of races which results won't count) and 1-2-3 or maybe 1-2-4.

I agree with you and BJ in that dropping 3 races is better than 2 or 4. As for the bonuses, with 1-2-3 do you mean the awarded EB in each round or the accumulated points (that is, one point per round, adding up to 3 points)? 


I am also leaning towards 3 races, 4 being too much, 2 being not enough.
Endurance bonus may stay - but only with a much lesser impact, and probably with no bonus at all on the very last (12th) completed race.

CTG

Quote from: zaqrack on December 10, 2012, 01:28:43 PM
Endurance bonus may stay - but only with a much lesser impact, and probably with no bonus at all on the very last (12th) completed race.

The best endurance bonus system was applied in 2002. Sometimes the first idea is the useful one.
3403,98 km

CTG

#25
Quote from: CTG on December 10, 2012, 01:32:44 PM
Quote from: zaqrack on December 10, 2012, 01:28:43 PM
Endurance bonus may stay - but only with a much lesser impact, and probably with no bonus at all on the very last (12th) completed race.

The best endurance bonus system was applied in 2002. Sometimes the first idea is the useful one.

If we take only the pure rankings without LTB, the current standings would be:

16.86 - Duplode
15.40 - CTG
14.94 - Gutix
14.17 - Renato Biker
14.14 - Friker

Calculating with the best available result:

17.50 - Duplode
16.14 - CTG
15.70 - Gutix
15.29 - Renato Biker
15.00 - Friker
3403,98 km

zaqrack

thanks for your thoughts.

point system for 2013:

- no change in position scores
- no change in LTB
- three worst result don't count
- EB reduced to 1-2-3 pts on the last three races.

Chulk

Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
ENDURANCE BONUS: I think we should change it to 3 races (same amount of races which results won't count) and 1-2-3
Quote from: zaqrack on January 02, 2013, 10:50:14 PM
- three worst result don't count
- EB reduced to 1-2-3 pts on the last three races.
I won! I won!!
Yes, it is me. No, I'm not back at racing (for now...)

Friker

Quote from: Chulk on January 03, 2013, 05:10:11 PM
Quote from: Chulk on December 05, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
ENDURANCE BONUS: I think we should change it to 3 races (same amount of races which results won't count) and 1-2-3
Quote from: zaqrack on January 02, 2013, 10:50:14 PM
- three worst result don't count
- EB reduced to 1-2-3 pts on the last three races.
I won! I won!!

Congratulations to you! :D The most valuable victory, isn't it? :D

Chulk

Quote from: Friker on January 03, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
Congratulations to you! :D The most valuable victory, isn't it? :D
Nope, it is just stage one of my plot to win Zakstunts '13
Yes, it is me. No, I'm not back at racing (for now...)