RACE OF CHAMPIONS - FC Ed. (NEW LUCKY LOSER RULE)
- Thread starter Hun200kmh
- 48 comments
- 4,366 views
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Great! 👍
So, the list of racers for round one is updated to:
1. GTP_Hun
2. GTP_ENERGIYA
3. jjaisli
4. mhm66
5. GTExD_pino-R
6. holy_sword
7. Zedux
8. GTP_fairplay_plz
9. GTP_mad94d
10. GTP_GoesTo11
11.GTP_Lofasz
12. Ardius_
13. GTP_Graffen
keep'em coming, the deadline is fast approaching!
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Glad to have you on board Piotr !!!
Meanwhile, we have two more competitors that applied in the eutechnyx forum, so this is the current list:
1. GTP_Hun
2. GTP_ENERGIYA
3. jjaisli
4. mhm66
5. GTExD_pino-R
6. holy_sword
7. Zedux
8. GTP_fairplay_plz
9. GTP_mad94d
10. GTP_GoesTo11
11.GTP_Lofasz
12. Ardius_
13. GTP_Graffen
14. Hereward
15. GTP_SimcoeAce
16. pauljw1983
17. host_killer
18. PiotrB_23
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Deadline is aproaching fast. We are still missing some of our usual friends/players, like danjama, RSRacer and Sarrinen, among others, but in less than 3 hours the inscriptions will be closed and I will post the pairings later tonight or tomorrow morning.
EDIT: I had a PM from RSRacer applying for the event, so the full (and, as of now, locked) list is this:
1. GTP_Hun
2. GTP_ENERGIYA
3. jjaisli
4. mhm66
5. GTExD_pino-R
6. holy_sword
7. Zedux
8. GTP_fairplay_plz
9. GTP_mad94d
10. GTP_GoesTo11
11.GTP_Lofasz
12. Ardius_
13. GTP_Graffen
14. Hereward
15. GTP_SimcoeAce
16. pauljw1983
17. host_killer
18. PiotrB_23
19. RSRacer
I will post the pairings in the Round 1 thread
EDIT: I had a PM from RSRacer applying for the event, so the full (and, as of now, locked) list is this:
1. GTP_Hun
2. GTP_ENERGIYA
3. jjaisli
4. mhm66
5. GTExD_pino-R
6. holy_sword
7. Zedux
8. GTP_fairplay_plz
9. GTP_mad94d
10. GTP_GoesTo11
11.GTP_Lofasz
12. Ardius_
13. GTP_Graffen
14. Hereward
15. GTP_SimcoeAce
16. pauljw1983
17. host_killer
18. PiotrB_23
19. RSRacer
I will post the pairings in the Round 1 thread
Last edited:
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Ok, I'm sorry to be double posting (in fact, with this one it will be "triple posting"), but as organizer of this event I feel compelled to make new posts (avoiding new threads) about specific issues.
I am aware of the serious "time limitations" all people have, and that's also one of the main reasons why this event is designed in such a simple way (one race per week).
But ... I decided to add the "lucky loser" rule not only to avoid the "odd number" issue, but also to grant everyone a fair chance to keep playing if it happens that in the first rounds and, because the pairings are randomly set (we have no divisions in FC), we have very tough races among aces and, at the same time, very easy matches with drivers with great difference in speed.
But I'm not quite happy with the way I set the "lucky loser" rule. So I want to ask the oppinion of others.
As it is, all losers from Round One can apply for the 2 vacant spots in Round Two by running a time trial (to be defined next saturday). This means I have to (try to) find a car/track combo where none of the ROL ("Round One losers" ) already known by Saturday have times already posted. If I don't find such a combo I'll have to pick one anyway. Deadline Tuesday night, only then I will be able to set the random pairings for Round Two.
Now, and don't wanting to set up this with races ...
(no time for that, we will have 9 ROL by sunday night and I need to get Round Two going without having to get "pairings" for ROL that could give me exactly the same fairness problems I'm trying to solve with this LL rule)
... I have two other solutions, maybe better than the one already set.
FIRST - best two laptimes from ROL players in the "Lap Records" for our Round One Race combo (348 Ch. at Mugello) give automatic access to Round Two, even if they were made in "testing", not in the actual Event Race.
SECOND - best two laptimes from ROL players in the Event race grant access to Round Two. In this case, I would need that the players of RO races would send me in the MANDATORY PSN PM, besides the race result, also the laptime achieved in the race by the losing racer.
I ask you guys to think about this and give me your opinion ASAP, if I'm going to change the "Lucky losers" rule (and I think I am) I need to do it before next Saturday and I'd like to have your feedback on this matter.
I am aware of the serious "time limitations" all people have, and that's also one of the main reasons why this event is designed in such a simple way (one race per week).
But ... I decided to add the "lucky loser" rule not only to avoid the "odd number" issue, but also to grant everyone a fair chance to keep playing if it happens that in the first rounds and, because the pairings are randomly set (we have no divisions in FC), we have very tough races among aces and, at the same time, very easy matches with drivers with great difference in speed.
But I'm not quite happy with the way I set the "lucky loser" rule. So I want to ask the oppinion of others.
As it is, all losers from Round One can apply for the 2 vacant spots in Round Two by running a time trial (to be defined next saturday). This means I have to (try to) find a car/track combo where none of the ROL ("Round One losers" ) already known by Saturday have times already posted. If I don't find such a combo I'll have to pick one anyway. Deadline Tuesday night, only then I will be able to set the random pairings for Round Two.
Now, and don't wanting to set up this with races ...
(no time for that, we will have 9 ROL by sunday night and I need to get Round Two going without having to get "pairings" for ROL that could give me exactly the same fairness problems I'm trying to solve with this LL rule)
... I have two other solutions, maybe better than the one already set.
FIRST - best two laptimes from ROL players in the "Lap Records" for our Round One Race combo (348 Ch. at Mugello) give automatic access to Round Two, even if they were made in "testing", not in the actual Event Race.
SECOND - best two laptimes from ROL players in the Event race grant access to Round Two. In this case, I would need that the players of RO races would send me in the MANDATORY PSN PM, besides the race result, also the laptime achieved in the race by the losing racer.
I ask you guys to think about this and give me your opinion ASAP, if I'm going to change the "Lucky losers" rule (and I think I am) I need to do it before next Saturday and I'd like to have your feedback on this matter.
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
Sorry I'm late coming back here, but I got some kind of death threat from Hun200. Okay, just kidding, he sent me a nice PM over at the Eutechnyx board. Unfortunately, I finally had to have my PC reformatted over the weekend, and it didn't help that I missed seeing Hun's PM till this morning.
I thought about it, and I don't have very many of the Ferraris bought yet. On top of that, work this week has been a drag on me, and I haven't been playing any racing games. I think if I did ask for an invite, I'd offer no real challenge. I think the way the races are structured now, it's better anyway, and the players should give each other a run for their money, which is what racing is all about, a good competition between competent drivers.
So have fun and good luck to all.
I thought about it, and I don't have very many of the Ferraris bought yet. On top of that, work this week has been a drag on me, and I haven't been playing any racing games. I think if I did ask for an invite, I'd offer no real challenge. I think the way the races are structured now, it's better anyway, and the players should give each other a run for their money, which is what racing is all about, a good competition between competent drivers.
So have fun and good luck to all.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Sorry I'm late coming back here, but I got some kind of death threat from Hun200. Okay, just kidding, he sent me a nice PM over at the Eutechnyx board. Unfortunately, I finally had to have my PC reformatted over the weekend, and it didn't help that I missed seeing Hun's PM till this morning.
I thought about it, and I don't have very many of the Ferraris bought yet. On top of that, work this week has been a drag on me, and I haven't been playing any racing games. I think if I did ask for an invite, I'd offer no real challenge. I think the way the races are structured now, it's better anyway, and the players should give each other a run for their money, which is what racing is all about, a good competition between competent drivers.
So have fun and good luck to all.
Thanks, hope to meet you in future events! 👍
Meanwhile, even without other players feedback, I have reached a decision about the "lucky loser rule". And it will be option named as "FIRST" in the previous post #40.
This avoids the current rule's associated problems (first, I had to set a "Time Trial" specifically for this; second, I could only set the pairings after the deadline of said "Time Trial" - tuesday, according to the rule)
And it also avoids the "Second option" associated problems, meaning, the MANDATORY PSN PM being not only a information of race result, but also of "loser best lap". The leaderboards are public for everyone to see, so let's keep things as simple as possible.
Besides, I don't login to PSN since Tuesday night and I don't even know if I have race results already in my PSN Inbox, or if they have the "loser best lap" information.
So, this is the "lucky loser rule" for this event:
1 - Lucky losers , will be picked according to the game's leaderboards in "Lap Records" (regardless of times existing in the "Time Trial" leaderboards), meaning, according to their best lap in a race situation, achieved until the end of the Round's deadline (23:59 each sunday)
2 - Because in this event we will have 2 "lucky losers" in both Rounds One and Two (and none in Rounds Three, Four and Five), this means that by the end of the two first rounds, and after I got all the race results, I will check the "Lap Records" Leaderbord and I will pick as "lucky losers" the two players with the best laptimes showing up there.
3 - After that is made, and with the full list of players that will play the next round, I will again randomly set the pairings and publish them (sometime after midnight sunday)
Disclaimer: The leaderboards don't always work right, and sometimes our best laps don't show up there. I think this is a problem mainly in the "Time Trial" leaderboards, but it can happen also in the "Lap Records" leaderboards. You must understand that all this is beyond me, and that I can only pick the players according to the laptimes I see published in those leaderboards.
If you guys have any doubts about this, just ask them here! 👍
EDIT: I already changed the opening post and published there the new (and I hope final) "lucky losers rule".
Last edited:
- 970
- AUSTRALIA
- ENERGIYA--V2
Mario, what happens if i cant meat my paired driver. Having no luck meeting him ONLINE, dont know what hour he's on ( My time )
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Did you send him a friends request on PSN? Did he send you one (he sent me, now he is on my PSN friends list)
Did you guys exchange any message at all?
Did any of you propose a race day and time? Was there any reply? Half the week has passed, by now you should have that cleared with him
- 970
- AUSTRALIA
- ENERGIYA--V2
We did send messages, he ask what car are track we were to use. Thats not the problem, i dont know when he is ONLINE in my time zone.
- 970
- AUSTRALIA
- ENERGIYA--V2
I am not familiar with GMT time, i wont know what to send.
I will be ONLINE between 11am to 4pm today until sunday, if no problems happen.
I will be ONLINE between 11am to 4pm today until sunday, if no problems happen.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Use this and do the math to see what your "Playtime" means in GMT: http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/
From my personal expeience racing with you I think the best for you is either late nightin europe/earlymorning AUS, or morning in Europe/evening night in AUS.
From my personal expeience racing with you I think the best for you is either late nightin europe/earlymorning AUS, or morning in Europe/evening night in AUS.
- 970
- AUSTRALIA
- ENERGIYA--V2
I checked and i sent message saying time i sent it ( 2:40am = GMT+10:30 )
Think it's write
Think it's write
