Driver Rating System

[glw]

GT6 should include a Driver Rating System in the vein of GT Academy, GT6 should include driver rating system that tracks corner cutting, off track excursions, collisions, and such (along with how egregious the offense)... Also, there should be an arcade mode that lets you drive without penalty to your driver rating but excludes you from earnings of credits and experience.

A great use for this would be to filter online racers by this rating over last 50 (or 100, etc.) races completed.

I know this idea needs more thought and input. Feel free to discuss and develop the concept of adding a Driver Rating System.

 

[Exorcet]

GT6 should include a Driver Rating System in the vein of GT Academy, GT6 should include driver rating system that tracks corner cutting, off track excursions, collisions, and such (along with how egregious the offense)... Also, there should be an arcade mode that lets you drive without penalty to your driver rating but excludes you from earnings of credits and experience.

A great use for this would be to filter online racers by this rating over last 50 (or 100, etc.) races completed.

I'm not a fan of this regulating online. But if it does, the rating should absolutely not be influenced by offline at all and shouldn't have anything to do with credits.

 

[GranTurismo916]

Not a good idea, because then dirty races would put everyone in the beginner group.

 

[research]

Surely there would be "clean beginner" races or rooms.

Also it would be good to have an offline and online rating- both visible to other players..

 

[ginsunh]

I have enjoyed the occasional "Dirty" themed race, so if there were an online Arcade mode that could skirt the rating system where those races could occur, I'd be for it.

 

[I Am Yellow]

No. The idea is okay, but I really think they wouldn't get it properly, punishing innocent players and rewarding the dirty. Also, it should never count offline races and should be there a mode not counting any points, otherwise dirty races won't be possible.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Want this? Buy iRacing. 💡

 

[thelvynau]

If done correctly driver rep sustem could work it could stop all the trolling invthe lobbys.

 

[Lain]

I think a rating system would be useful for allowing people to keep the bad drivers away.

IMO, the rating system should take three factors into consideration: Average speed, average number of collisions, and average number of times gone off track. I think it shouldn't be limited to just counting your online races, but it should be weighted to value your online race performance higher than your offline race performance. And there should be modes (such as free run) which don't affect your rating.

And your rating should only be based on a certain interval of races, 100 for instance, so that it doesn't penalize you for your oldest races even though your skill might've greatly improved since then.

 

[occasionalracer]

I think a rating system is a vital part that needs implementation without a doubt. There has to be a way of separating/bringing together racer of the same caliber. It would have to to a very tricked out calculation of how each player finishes in relation to each race. Not so much position/time finished behind leader or # races won, but an average between all kinds of factors including contact measured in heaviness if possible, average lap-time, overtakes/getting overtaken without contact, off course counts, consistent/low grip loss..ect... we don't want to see the very best be out of reach to race against or anything... we still need a decently mixed playing field.

To do something like this is very difficult indeed and is a lot of data to store, and then the key thing is to have it designed to completely eliminate cheating or benefiting through finding loopholes, probably why PD has not gone ahead with this.

 

[avens]

ranked and unranked races, but it's useless without regulations that somehow no one wants. In the end there will never be decent public racing in the GT series.

 

[occasionalracer]

ranked and unranked races, but it's useless without regulations that somehow no one wants. In the end there will never be decent public racing in the GT series.

Ok then, now we can all just walk home with our heads down.

 

[avens]

....to iracing

Explaining the prior point, thing is there could be safety and skill points (separately) with ranked and unranked races but they will be useless if ranked races consist of 2000hp X2014s with racing soft tires (glue). That's giving points to nfs racing.

The proper way to do it is restricting all tuning in ranked races (that isn't suspension and others related, but no hp, brakes, etc. improvement), same tires for each car so they cannot be changed (s2000 = always comfort soft), assists available depending on each car (so most racing categories = absolutely 0 assists including abs off), etc.
I'd say the tire limit should go up to sports meds or sports soft by current standards (I know it will be changed completely but you get the point). That means the s2000 always has comfort soft tires and the x2010 always has sports soft, not more not less, because racing tires in gt5 are glue to the point in GT5 the F1 soft tires for the F2010 car are comfort soft (it changes from car to car), not even sports hard and less so racing soft. That's how badly RS kill the "simulation" side of GT5 and makes it nfs.

No one wants all that in GT5 so public racing in the GT series will always be a joke no matter driver rating points, therefore it's either private lobbies and leagues or a pc sim that has all that on public races (iracing).

 

[MoLiEG]

The only Driver Rating System that should exist should consist entirely on online wins & fastest lap records, if you ask me... 👍

 

[avens]

The only Driver Rating System that should exist should consist entirely on online wins & fastest lap records, if you ask me... 👍

It has to have an ELO or similar system because it's not the same defeating "k!ddo_1999" than vettel, and safety rating is a must because crashing people on purpose is not racing.

edit: fastest lap is a good idea only if everyone does it with the exact same car, same tires per each car (s2000 = always comfort softs. Can't fit gripper tires or worse) and so on that isn't setup tuning (suspension etc).....and no one wants that as they all want to fit RS with 1000000hp.

 

[occasionalracer]

Well GT has to remain a universal game and still treat casual non-serious gamer base with respect, so there should be an online mode labelled 'just for fun' that doesn't apply points to your online career.

A leveling system could only be applied to online 'simulation mode', which first an foremost has tight restrictions to start with. The physics and tires will hopefully be overhauled and be iRacing comparable (praying), so for the massive amount of GT players who want to experience actual competition and have excellent point chart/rating, a rating system would really get more people to play more often and try achieve real life racing sportsmanship and be intrigued to improve.

I've read about iRacing's frustrating safety rating system (giving unfair point deductions to innocent victims), so PD should take a different direction that takes more factors into account.. since it's such a large pool of players from pros with wheels to noobs with controllers.

 

[avens]

That's why there should be ranked and unranked races. Also ranked races should have match making before the first race, in the form of account stats (a bit) and most importantly a time trial for example (all with the same car tires no assists etc).
Have to separate kids from men at the very beginning just so dirty and slow drivers are on "elo hell" (races in which it's as bad as unranked. It's a necessary consequence) and good ones on "elo heaven".

More than being unfair, which is something that would be very difficult to get rid of if not impossible, iracing's safety rating problem is it is way too strict.
It should just be a way of preventing intentional crashes, dirty passes and corner cutting but nothing more. It's racing after all so there's some friendly touching and going off the track (something that makes you slower anyway) shouldn't be a permanent account penalty that ends up in players having to grind out of it.

 

[Earth]

The only Driver Rating System that should exist should consist entirely on online wins & fastest lap records, if you ask me... 👍

I like the idea of fast laps, but I dont know about wins. That stat may encourage drivers to wreck the leader on the final lap instead of racing fair.

For me, an ideal online rating system should include the following.

# of Poles & Pole to Race Ratio
# of Fast Laps & Fast Lap to Race Ratio

# of races started and # of races finished - including Ratio (to expose the quitters and encourage drivers to finish races)

LPI, or laps per incident. Any severe impact with a wall or impact with another car caused by you counts as an incident. This stat averages out how many incidents you have per laps. If you only have 1 incident every 20 or so laps, you are a good, clean driver.

Official and unofficial online events can have varying degrees of LPI restrictions.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think you guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

They simply need to separate online and offline experience points. Knowing how much online experience someone has would be a great help.

I can’t tell you how many times I have been squeezed into the guard rail trying to pass on the inside, or pushed off the track trying to pass on the outside. Then checked that person’s profile only to find that they are level 40/40.

Then when I say something to them about it they say something like “I was just following my line”. How can it be their line if I am already in it.

It is not that these people want to be dirty. For the most part they don’t even know that they are. They simply have no clue how to race with real people. The AI sideswipes them every time it passes, they pass the AI the same way. That is all they have ever known.

I was the same way back when I first started racing online in GT5 Prologue. I emailed a guy after a race once and asked why, if he hit me, did I got the penalty – I was just following my line. His explanation to me really opened my eyes and I changed the way I raced online.

I don’t want to kick someone if they are just new to online, but as it is now I can’t tell. If someone rips my non-functioning side view mirror off as they pass me, I would not feel so bad about kicking them if I could see that they had a ton of online experience.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

To re-iterate the obvious: iRacing.


IRacing has done everything I've seen here so far. There's a reason I've all but given up on GT5, excluding rallying.


IRacing is everything cracked up to be, albeit at an expensive premium.


The problem with GT5 isn't GT5, it's the way people treat it. The game doesn't have a real, proper, accurate penalty system. The only accurate penalty system is the "Reject Player" button, that does nothing but make rooms empty.


The problem with iRacing is the cost, and the PC system requirements. Otherwise, Polyphony Digital would likely already be out of business. IRacing (on a good computer) has side mirrors, a rating system that rewards drivers for staying on-track, without collisions, a black-flag system for unsafe/unfair conduct (speeding in pit-lane,) and a rating system that rewards drivers for finishing well in races, and having speed.

Is that not what this whole thread has been created for?

The iRacing Safety Rating, as a whole, is the best way to create clean racing, because you can only drive the fun, fast cars if you drive the slow cars with respect, and logic. Then, add black-flags, iRating, and a much heavier damage system (including forced-pit stops, and, (upon rolling the car, or hitting a concrete barrier) a forced-retirement system,) and it's actually rewarding better drivers.

 

[Lain]

The only Driver Rating System that should exist should consist entirely on online wins & fastest lap records, if you ask me... 👍

Online wins isn't a good measure of driving skill. For all we know, somebody could've crashed the competition out of their way to get those wins.

Fastest lap records is a good idea, but has too many issues... how would it affect somebody's rating if they don't have a lap record set for a certain track layout? How do you make sure that lap records for all track layouts contribute equally to the player's overall rating? Or should they be equal? Perhaps lap records on longer/more difficult tracks should contribute more points to a player's overall rating?

That's why I think average speed is the ideal measure of skill, because it's rather simple. Think about it: Imagine, hypothetically speaking, that there are two GT players who have completed the A-spec portion of the game with 0 crashes and 0 number of times gone off track. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that the player with the higher average speed during their A-spec career is the better racer?

So you start off with average speed during races as the basic measure of skill, then you penalize it for crashing and going off track. Seems like the simplest and fairest way to come up with a meaningful indicator of a player's skill rating.

 

[Exorcet]

The iRacing Safety Rating, as a whole, is the best way to create clean racing, because you can only drive the fun, fast cars if you drive the slow cars with respect, and logic.

That sounds like pointless limitation to me. If people need someone holding their hand to behave fine, but let the rest of us opt out.

The rating shouldn't effect what you can or can't do, outside of maybe official PD events that have limited space.

For your average online room, it should certainly not do anything on it's own. Let the host set a restriction if desired, but that must include an option to ignore the rating completely.

Online wins isn't a good measure of driving skill. For all we know, somebody could've crashed the competition out of their way to get those wins.

Fastest lap records is a good idea, but has too many issues... how would it affect somebody's rating if they don't have a lap record set for a certain track layout? How do you make sure that lap records for all track layouts contribute equally to the player's overall rating? Or should they be equal? Perhaps lap records on longer/more difficult tracks should contribute more points to a player's overall rating?

That's why I think average speed is the ideal measure of skill, because it's rather simple. Think about it: Imagine, hypothetically speaking, that there are two GT players who have completed the A-spec portion of the game with 0 crashes and 0 number of times gone off track. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that the player with the higher average speed during their A-spec career is the better racer?

So you start off with average speed during races as the basic measure of skill, then you penalize it for crashing and going off track. Seems like the simplest and fairest way to come up with a meaningful indicator of a player's skill rating.

Firstly, offline should have nothing to do with ratings. Secondly, average speed is laptime. Finally, everyone who decides to use a slower car for a race is suddenly punished.

 

[glw]

Personally, I think the game should keep track of the last 50 or so races (online and/or offline) and give you a rating based on how skillful you were in those races (crashes, offs, cutting, line, speed, etc.).

This rating could be used by the player to see their skill progression and could be used by online room hosts to filter participants. I also think each race could be classified as an arcade mode race which excludes it from adding to the ratings (online let the host decide, offline let the racer decide).

Maybe even have a short term (50 races) and long term rating (100 races).

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Personally, I think the game should keep track of the last 50 or so races (online and/or offline) and give you a rating based on how skillful you were in those races (crashes, offs, cutting, line, speed, etc.).

This rating could be used by the player to see their skill progression and could be used by online room hosts to filter participants. I also think each race could be classified as an arcade mode race which excludes it from adding to the ratings (online let the host decide, offline let the racer decide).

Maybe even have a short term (50 races) and long term rating (100 races).

As a host (that is ALL I do). I am not going go digging through a bunch of driver stats every time there is an incident while I consider whether or not to allow that person to stay in my room.

All I need to know is if the guy is new to online racing or not. If he has lots of online experience I will probably kick him. If he is new to online I will probably give him a break.

The current A-spec rating tells me nothing if the guy is at level 40. If I get knocked off the track and I see that the guy is a level 15 driver I will probably not kick him unless the room is full and I need space for better drivers. For some reason a lot of people feel the need to max out their A-spec rating before even trying online racing.

I only need to know how much online experience the driver has – that is all.

I am sure that many hosts and their good friends goof around a bit before strangers start coming into the room – I do NOT want my driving skills to be judged by some computer algorithm. And certainly not one written by the same people that programmed AI drivers in this game.

 

[Samus]

Personally I don't think a system like this would ever really work on a console game, the general audience is just too varied for it to work. Even without a rating system a game like iRacing would still attract mostly mature, clean drivers because of it's hardcore sim nature and it being on PC. Console games are different, they don't attract that crowd and so a rating system would just be heavily flawed no matter how it worked.

 

[SagarisGTB]

On this occasion, I have to agree with SimonK. The system in iracing is quite poor and that's applied in an expensive racing sim that caters to predominantly mature and serious racers. It would be a disaster on a mainstream console game.

 

[occasionalracer]

I don't think it would be a disaster at all if PD have studied general online behaviour in GT5.

Everything should be based on "ratio calculation", so not the way iRacing is designed with simple +/- points.

Safety rating should be tied in with general online race performances, really it goes hand in hand. So a person with say 100 'relatively' super clean and a 'relatively' high finished races, can achieve the same online rating as a guy with 500 races under his belt with average results. This all has to be calculated on a ratio basis where the other racers online points you're racing against are a key determination of the points you receive/loose.

In a race where a really good driver is in a room driving with 15 others with very few points, the addition of points will be very minor or even none. And vice versa those racing against higher rated players will get higher points for good performances. I'm trying to figure out a scoring mechanism in my head right now, but the fact is, this IS indeed very tricky to get a formula in a way that doesn't fail, especially in the higher end of the 'equation ladder', say the top 10.000 players and downward, it would likely start becoming very unreliable...

There are always new players which is why it's impossible to perfect, but I'm just trying to say that newer players shouldn't be that handicapped by the fact they don't have 100's hours of racing under their belt, but rather that relative performances is what get's you ahead, and to a very limited extent, yes, experience is a necessary to get 'up there'.

But to have rooms where only 'professionals' with a certain online points level can participate, there needs to be a simple way for new drivers to reach this level by proving clean driving and half decent lap times.

 

[glw]

As a host (that is ALL I do). I am not going go digging through a bunch of driver stats every time there is an incident while I consider whether or not to allow that person to stay in my room.

All I need to know is if the guy is new to online racing or not. If he has lots of online experience I will probably kick him. If he is new to online I will probably give him a break.

The current A-spec rating tells me nothing if the guy is at level 40. If I get knocked off the track and I see that the guy is a level 15 driver I will probably not kick him unless the room is full and I need space for better drivers. For some reason a lot of people feel the need to max out their A-spec rating before even trying online racing.

I only need to know how much online experience the driver has – that is all.

I am sure that many hosts and their good friends goof around a bit before strangers start coming into the room – I do NOT want my driving skills to be judged by some computer algorithm. And certainly not one written by the same people that programmed AI drivers in this game.

I think you misunderstand what i proposed in this thread because there should be no "digging"... I'll restate what i thought I proposed.

If, over the last 100 laps/20 races, you raced clean with no offs and maintained a good line at speed you'd have a 10 star rating. Similarly, if you collided with other racers but had no offs and maintained a good line with speed you be a 6 to 9 rating depending on how aggegious your collisions were. etc. etc. That way, as a host, you could set the requirements so that onlyrequire 7 and higher rated racers could race in your event/room. Now, if you only wanted the best you could set it at 9 and 10 and be sure the people getting into your room/race are capable of racing clean and fast. Alternatively, if you wanted an open room/race you could set the rating at 0 and anyone could race.

The good thing with my proposal is that if you, as a driver, want to improve your rating just do a few events and drive well and your rating will improve becuse it is made up of only the last 100 laps/20 races.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I think you misunderstand what i proposed in this thread because there should be no "digging"... I'll restate what i thought I proposed.

If, over the last 100 laps/20 races, you raced clean with no offs and maintained a good line at speed you'd have a 10 star rating. Similarly, if you collided with other racers but had no offs and maintained a good line with speed you be a 6 to 9 rating depending on how aggegious your collisions were. etc. etc. That way, as a host, you could set the requirements so that onlyrequire 7 and higher rated racers could race in your event/room. Now, if you only wanted the best you could set it at 9 and 10 and be sure the people getting into your room/race are capable of racing clean and fast. Alternatively, if you wanted an open room/race you could set the rating at 0 and anyone could race.

The good thing with my proposal is that if you, as a driver, want to improve your rating just do a few events and drive well and your rating will improve becuse it is made up of only the last 100 laps/20 races.

Well good luck filling that room.

 

[Lain]

Firstly, offline should have nothing to do with ratings. Secondly, average speed is laptime. Finally, everyone who decides to use a slower car for a race is suddenly punished.

To your first point: Although I disagree with you, since I see no good reason why offline races shouldn't count towards your rating, I was just using A-spec as an example.

To your second: True. But average speed is a single number, so it's much easier to work with than a bunch of lap times for various tracks.

To your third: True, but the same goes for using lap times.