◆ SNAIL [Spec] Racing - Join now to win a Digit Racing EDGE Masterclass enrollment!!Open

[the2armedmen]

i vote 2.

 

[DrKronin]

2.

 

[Chiochan]

1 - current multiplier.

 

[zegrated]

2

 

[DriftinAssassin]

While this is a great pic of the Mazda lets try to get something original for the banner post

I'll get to it when I turn on my PS3 and load up GT5 joby.

P.S. - I think we should stick with our current system. My vote goes to 1. ( Secretly barely understands it all )

 

[ThePDTX]

While this is a great pic of the Mazda lets try to get something original for the banner post

I took one, but I don't know how to attach it here...

 

[Garagefather]

With all this in mind, please submit your vote by replying with one of these two choices:

1. current multiplier
2. new formula

I like choice 2

The equation is better expressed: points awarded = 16-z(16/y), where x=16/y and points awarded = 16-zx are combined into one equation.

Now when my kids ask why they have to learn this stuff they will never ever use, I will show them this and explain that mathematics is the language of the universe and even video game racing leagues depend on it.

 

[TEX36]

Sorry - didn't mean to repeat the entire description of Multiplier Choice earlier. Wasted space, again.

Saw that there is a TVR Griffin 500 '94 in the UCD. Looks like a competitive car. Of course, more experienced SNAILS may differ in that opinion.
Just sharin' a thought.

 

[Rallywagon]

I love the griffin, and all the rest of the TVRs, but even the griffin can be a bit crazy without a tune.

 

[qwietstorm]

I vote 1.

 

[hooker4]

1

 

[ThePDTX]

Did I do this right?

Edit: I guess I did.

 

[hillracing]

I think I'll vote 2. If I understand it, it better adjusts for how many people were in the races. Hope it does so.

I know we're voting and everything so it's probably the wrong time to bring up another idea for points but I always liked the points structure that we used in Karts which was a base number of points for every position plus a point for each of people in the race. For example base points were:

1st:200
2nd:190
3rd:180
4th:175
5th:170
6th:165
7th:160
8th:155
9th:150
10th:145
11th:142
12th:139
13th:136
14th:133
15th:130
16th:127

So that's the base points. Now if you had five guys in the division you would just add 5 points to each spot and those would be your points for that race. Anyways I know we're supposed to just vote and not debate but I missed the debate.

 

[bandit0627]

While this is a great pic of the Mazda lets try to get something original for the banner post

 

[DriftinAssassin]

I guess Joby has alot to pick from then.

 

[mopar fan]

2

 

[TRL_Importlife]

My vote 2

 

[Oshawa-Joe]

I'm OK with trying something new. Vote for 2.

 

[ThePDTX]

So I looked at the two options again to refresh my memory and I vote for number 2.

 

[Handlebar]

I vote 1

 

[EAO-HarleyMan]

Did I do this right?

Edit: I guess I did.

Awesome picture PDTX I like it this one is banner material

 

[EAO-HarleyMan]

I vote for #2

 

[ThePDTX]

Awesome picture PDTX I like it this one is banner material

Thanks.

 

[Rallywagon]

I believe that Cheeb or zer0 made mention that the number was wrong that was being used as y? is that being changed? Did it not cause the bigger division to always have a higher score?

No, not y, this is what I mean.

Ever since our points adjustment system was implemented last November, I've pretty much been in love with it. It was never intended to penalize divisions with low numbers, but rather compensate for the increased or decreased difficulty in scoring points based on how many drivers were racing. However, if you go through the recent resuls, you'll see that the winner of the division with the most drivers is awarded Prize A. That brings into question whether the ".03" multiplier that we've been using is too high of a multiplier. Perhaps we should use a ".02" multiplier instead? Or how about meet in the middle at ".025"? But whatever multiplier we use, it'll only be an estimation and can never be proven to be exactly correct. It's also based on an average grid size of 10 drivers, which is probably not an ideal factor to base a points adjustment system on since the average number of drivers can fluctuate week to week or month to month.

 

[Handlebar]

I would vote for 0.25 Multiplier over the other two choices.

 

[zer05ive]

With all this in mind, please submit your vote by replying with one of these two choices:

1. current multiplier
2. new formula

I vote for 2. new formula

 

[tevesh2]

Hopping onto an online room for some practice. 1472 4711 0167 3385 0694

 

[JLBowler]

I was curious as to how the prize distribution had broken down over the last few months and I found something else in the process. I had to back to April 7 to find that last time that the winner of D5 didn't win a prize. Most of the time it was won by a driver that was new to S.N.A.I.L. and would be moved up at the end of the month. Am I alone in thinking that maybe some of these new guys are not being placed in the right division? Are they really learning that fast or are they maybe not putting in the full effort on their time trial? Is the time trial that we have not accurate in placing drivers in the correct division? Maybe we should place new drivers one division up just to see if they can hang there? I'll admit, I haven't studied the mountains of data, I've only done the eyeball test on the results.

 

[the2armedmen]

They are learning to drive. I won prizes about 5 weeks in a row at one point and I was in the right division up until that point. I sucked before I was snailing and alot of us can probably say the same

 

[zegrated]

I was curious as to how the prize distribution had broken down over the last few months and I found something else in the process. I had to back to April 7 to find that last time that the winner of D5 didn't win a prize. Most of the time it was won by a driver that was new to S.N.A.I.L. and would be moved up at the end of the month. Am I alone in thinking that maybe some of these new guys are not being placed in the right division? Are they really learning that fast or are they maybe not putting in the full effort on their time trial? Is the time trial that we have not accurate in placing drivers in the correct division? Maybe we should place new drivers one division up just to see if they can hang there? I'll admit, I haven't studied the mountains of data, I've only done the eyeball test on the results.

In kcheeb's post it says to run 10-15 laps. I have a feeling some people do not do this, either because they don't have time or don't want to bother.

If someone only runs 1 or 2 laps and records that time, it probably isn't as accurate in determining the right division.

I know that it was not until my 11th or 12th lap when I started finding ways to gain time and I knocked off about a half a second off my time. I probably would have been placed in a lower division if I did not run all those laps.

And yes, the other part of it is, as others have pointed out, that this league makes you better quite quickly. Some truly were meant for the lower divisions when they started out, and through weeks of driving in this league, legitimately became faster.