FITT - Moving on to GT6!

[Ronald6]

The schedule could definitely use an update. That alone might cut down on the overload.

Edit: I'm free for the evening. I finished the FF Shootout and the '86 Shootout.

 

[CyKosis1973]

The testers are right here in front of our faces, they're just not testing.

You're never going to find a tester for these events that doesn't, through force of habit, learn things about tuning and eventually become one, the only question is whether they'll open a garage or not. Once they're a tuner, they no longer fit the bracket "tester not a tuner", which IIRC is what was said to be desired. It hasn't happened yet, and I wouldn't recommend holding your breath for it either. (Mike_GT3 is close, but I think he's pretty much reserved for Nurburgring shootouts)

So with that in mind, we, all the tuners, are responsible for testing these events if we wish to continue to have them. There is not an endless supply of new faces to come through the door and test their first 1-2 shootouts and then just want to tune for the rest of time without testing again.

In-game prizes have little meaning at this stage in the game, which has been out 1 1/2 years now. Everyone has everything, and if they don't have it, they can probably get it. We don't enter shootouts as tuners to win a premium car do we? We enter them because we like to tune, and are potentially competitive, actual prizes received means very little to most of us.

+1 👍

{Cy}

 

[nomis3613]

Nomis said something about his 40/60 60/40 shootout earlier in this thread...

Thanks, man! Yeah, I'm still keen to get my spot in the queue for this.

(I'm still keen to be a tester in FITT shootouts in future, just felt I needed a break from FFs back when XDes's comp was being set up)

 

[trackripper123]

Nomis, re-reading your rules, surely you have to ban the Elise if you're banning the GSX and all the others...?

 

[Motor City Hami]

we, all the tuners, are responsible for testing these events if we wish to continue to have them. There is not an endless supply of new faces to come through the door and test their first 1-2 shootouts and then just want to tune for the rest of time without testing again.

For once we completely agree with each other. Mark the day.

I think that I am up next in August with Rally vs Street Versions. I have been considering making it a requirement that if you submit a tune, you are also agreeing to test. If you don't submit your test results by the deadline (or agreed upon extended deadline) then your tune will be removed from the final standings.

I intend to split the field into two groups. If your tune is in group 1, you will be testing group 2.

 

[trackripper123]

Hami, you may want to ask Nomis whether his shootout comes first, I think he did mention it slightly earlier.

 

[Motor City Hami]

My shootout has been listed in the first pages for a couple of months.

 

[DigitalBaka]

My understanding is that Hami's will be after the wrap up on the FF shootout. It would have been up already were it not for the round two I think. Nomis will likely go after in September and I was hoping to fit mine in during November unless Harvey wants to use it to wrap up the year like we did with TOF last year. The others seem to have fallen to the wayside but we could potentially pick them up at any time. And of course the TCV suchness that RJ and Roj were doing was planned to be ongoing regardless of other events.

We really need to do a better job of scheduling I think.

 

[CSLACR]

I am actually starting to think we should make them quicker.

Everyone worries about "time to test and time to tune" but the bulk of the work is always done in a single week, if someone can't make it that week, they can grab the next one.
I know my shootouts have been as long or longer than most, so I'm as guilty of prolonging them as anyone, but they do seem to grow stale when there's multiple 2-week windows between deadlines.

We have a line wanting to host, untold amounts of unused ideas left to go, I don't know, it seems like we're going through these much more slowly than needed.

Maybe we make a schedule "releasing" a shootout every 2-3 weeks, any shootouts that wish to run a second round can, it'll just run while the next one starts? Obviously we don't "enforce", but surely we can work out a gentleman's agreement as we've been doing.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Digital Baker is technically next so if you are ready, please feel free to take your turn. If not, My Rally vs Street is ready for August 1st.

I agree with CSLACR about the length. I haven't been a fan of round two's. I have a scoring idea to test during my shootout that should eliminate the need for round two.

 

[trackripper123]

Oh right, apologies Hami.

And I'm in agreement about Round 2s, they're not necessary most of the time.

 

[DigitalBaka]

Digital Baker is technically next so if you are ready, please feel free to take your turn. If not, My Rally vs Street is ready for August 1st.

I agree with CSLACR about the length. I haven't been a fan of round two's. I have a scoring idea to test during my shootout that should eliminate the need for round two.

Nope, go ahead. I'm already spread a little thin for my time and adding hosting on to that would make a big ol' headache for everyone. I'll put you on the calendar for 8/1...do you know when you are planning to end?

I'm also in agreement with the length and timing. I think we can start to push them closer and make them shorter. Two weeks to tune and two weeks to test has been somewhat of a standard for larger events but I think we can compress it by at least a week. People tend to lose interest quickly so keeping things moving may keep folks around from one event to another.

 

[krenkme]

My Classic Car Shootout was 20 days long. 9 to tune and 11 to test, and that seemed.to work rather well. The problem comes when we have multiple rounds/classes/tracks, ect. Then a longer event might be needed.

I'm also liking the limit of tuners. This, I feel, would help bring in some testers, knowing how many cars they have to test.

 

[trackripper123]

The "first come first served" lists for the tuners in the recent shootouts work well actually, it means the testers aren't swamped with entries.

 

[Ronald6]

For a schedule I have:
'86 : 7/15 for tunes, 7/22 testing
Caterham 7: 7/29, 8/2 (rnd 1 testing)
World Classic CC: 8/5, 8/12
Rally: 8/1?

 

[CSLACR]

My Classic Car Shootout was 20 days long. 9 to tune and 11 to test, and that seemed.to work rather well. The problem comes when we have multiple rounds/classes/tracks, ect. Then a longer event might be needed.

I'm also liking the limit of tuners. This, I feel, would help bring in some testers, knowing how many cars they have to test.

The "first come first served" lists for the tuners in the recent shootouts work well actually, it means the testers aren't swamped with entries.

Actually it's been terrible imo. It certainly hasn't increased testers, but it has decreased tuners. So it lowers participation, and only lowers participation.
All that it does and will continue to do is have a list of the first 10 people interested tuning, and leaves 20+ tuners sitting around with no shootout.
20 testers for 10 cars? Sometimes I think people forget the amount of local traffic that we really have going through here.

I agree the tuner/tester load is an issue, but just throwing the first 10-15 "lucky people that happen to be online", as the only allowed tuners has actually made me far less interested in the recent shootouts than ever before.
Basically, for those of us that have limited internet time, as myself, for example, the past 3 shootouts in a row have been tuner "filled" by the first time I even saw they existed.
But then if you have 40 tuners and limits of 10, I guess 1 out of 4 is the best we could hope for with even odds.

For a schedule I have:
'86 : 7/15 for tunes, 7/22 testing
Caterham 7: 7/29, 8/2 (rnd 1 testing)
World Classic CC: 8/5, 8/12
Rally: 8/1?

I don't know, we're in here discussing gentleman's agreements and scheduling, who's next, etc etc.
The other option is people just start shootouts as they please and we let public demand provide natural selection, to weed out the shootouts that aren't interesting enough to people. Honestly, either is as effective as the other, but you'll never run out of tuners for your shootouts, it's testers you won't have. We're lucky to get 5 testers (that submit) running one shootout at a time, let alone 3.

 

[trackripper123]

Actually it's been terrible imo. It certainly hasn't increased testers, but it has decreased tuners. So it lowers participation, and only lowers participation.
All that it does and will continue to do is have a list of the first 10 people interested tuning, and leaves 20+ tuners sitting around with no shootout.
20 testers for 10 cars? Sometimes I think people forget the amount of local traffic that we really have going through here.

I agree the tuner/tester load is an issue, but just throwing the first 10-15 "lucky people that happen to be online", as the only allowed tuners has actually made me far less interested in the recent shootouts than ever before.
Basically, for those of us that have limited internet time, as myself, for example, the past 3 shootouts in a row have been tuner "filled" by the first time I even saw they existed.

I think the point is here that testers are more likely to want to test if they see there are a fixed, reasonable number of cars to test, and not a tuner number that is inflating by the day.

 

[krenkme]

*EDIT-cut, cheep shot, uncalled for by me*

And yes it may not be fair, but if I knew that I could test 15 cars at a track I may enter as a tester, but if its like 20-40 there's no way in hell I'm touching that.

 

[CSLACR]

I think the point is here that testers are more likely to want to test if they see there are a fixed, reasonable number of cars to test, and not a tuner number that is inflating by the day.

You're absolutely right. But when only running one thing at a time, it's usually best to allow more than 25-33% of interested parties into each event.
Not to mention the luck part, if you're a working type, you come home from work and see another shootout opened, and it's already full. Again.
I don't know, but it certainly doesn't inspire me to sign up as a tester, not for the shootout I literally had a 0% chance of entering as a tuner. Maybe other peoples minds work differently on that aspect though.

It's just a shame we get the same people saying there going to test, but never really do. A mediocre drive might be scared to test with the likes of a great drive and not test only to have that great driver not test at all. Somehow we need to let people know your times are important, and as long as all testing is done the same, enjoy... and if you can't test, please do not say you will.

And yes it may not be fair, but if I knew that I could test 15 cars at a track I may enter as a tester, but if its like 20-40 there's no way in hell I'm touching that.

It's not just about fair, very little to do with it actually. I've considered limits as well, but luck of the draw will never determine a shootout of mine, no offense intended of course, it's an honorable attempt to remedy a problem, I won't do it simply because I don't find it any more effective than divisions.

Very simply, (besides MCH's scoring that I'm very interested to see) the only thing I'm aware of that really helps this issue, is divisions. Unfortunately divisions almost require a second round. Or a "tie" between division winners. Or a points system that tries to decipher which car would have won with all the same drivers.(Which is impossible if you ask me)

I actually think 2 rounds is the way to go, divisions of 5. We can always start the next shootout as soon as round 1 ends, as it will only be a few people left for round 2.

 

[CSLACR]

*EDIT-cut, cheep shot, uncalled for by me*

And yes it may not be fair, but if I knew that I could test 15 cars at a track I may enter as a tester, but if its like 20-40 there's no way in hell I'm touching that.

First, I already quoted it, but I guess if you really want I'll remove it.

Absolutely no idea how that's a "cheap shot" though, it's just true. People sign up to test and disappear, we've known some to quit outright saying they aren't good enough (in their mind), and to be honest, it seems to me like less testers sign up if I sign to test when a shootout opens, rather than waiting until a group of testers have already signed up..

 

[Ronald6]

It's hard (especially for me) to test alot of cars, say more than 12, in a week. Limiting the number if cars a driver will need to review is almost a must. But it's entirely possible, if the Shootout is managed correctly, for a driver to take a larger bite if he so chooses.

My shootout has no limit for tuners but I don't think I've hit 15 yet. And only three drivers for each Class, including myself.

Having more tuners is fine, but unless there are drivers willing to review so the tuners can improve themselves and their tunes it's kinda pointless.

Isn't one of the main reasons for a Shootout to improve the tunes?

My schedule wasn't my driver/review schedule, but what I know of thats on the FITT board (even though my shootout hasn't been "approved" yet.) Part of the problem with scheduling is that the "managers" don't know where to go (FITT) and once they get there they get messages like "we're not a sanctioning body." Kinda frustrating.

 

[CSLACR]

Well... It's not.

FITT is basically here to provide aid in the formation and scheduling of shootouts.
Anyone that wishes to make a shootout does not need to ask or go through FITT in any way.
I think impatience is rearing it's head due to incredibly long waiting lists. Plus with limits you can fill a bunch of shootouts with tuners. Testers will be increasingly hard to find this way though.

 

[Ronald6]

So how do I get my shootout, not sanctioned apparently, but put on the FITT schedule?

Where is the schedule?
When was it last updated?
When will it be updated?
How do I get put on it?

If we get more drivers/reviewers put on the FITT list of drivers on the first post (:cough and we the drivers politely tell the managers that "sorry, you're not on the schedule" then things should go smoothly.

Basicly: FITT Should sanction events. What else is it called to be on the FITT schedule. If the drivers agree to keep to the schedule (personal projects aside) then there won't be as much clutter, more testers and better management.

If the shootouts say in the first line of the post that they are sanctioned by FITT then the future managers will want to get "put on the list."

 

[CSLACR]

Has Desperado read these last few days of posts?

As for sanctioning, FITT could become a club of sorts, and sanction it's own events, but it can't stop someone from creating a shootout of their own at their whim.
Agree or disagree, Jordan won't likely be allowing that anytime soon.

 

[Ronald6]

That's not what I'm saying by mentioning "sanctioned" events, but I think you know that. How about "stamp of approval," or "approved" instead.

Any way you call it, if the testers and tuners stick to the "schedule" then future managers will find it easier and get more participation if they seek FITT "approval."

FITT has no need to tell anyone what to do when enough people want to participate.

 

[DigitalBaka]

If nobody minds terribly I will shove my nose in here, take over and start banging out a schedule with dates and all. I will go back over the thread and check out what is what, PM some folks and start putting events up on a calendar.

Regarding length, I am thinking to make the standard 10 days to tune, 10 days to test. I will assume one round before starting the next event, possibly a few days between. If a round two needs to happen I will give it 10 days to finish up as a default. This can go on while tuners are gearing up on the next event; a round two would not delay the start of the next shootout.

In the case that folks are not ready to start on time they will be bumped back one "slot" and I will find the next ready host. Other events may and probably will pop up while these "main" events are happening which should be OK. If it gets overwhelming people will just stop participating on their own which should more or less keeps things where they need to be.

And of course I will advertise as much as I can through our new social outlets. We'll see how those work out for drawing folks to our events.

Any other thoughts? Objections? Pies?

 

[krenkme]

If nobody minds terribly I will shove my nose in here, take over and start banging out a schedule with dates and all. I will go back over the thread and check out what is what, PM some folks and start putting events up on a calendar.

Regarding length, I am thinking to make the standard 10 days to tune, 10 days to test. I will assume one round before starting the next event, possibly a few days between. If a round two needs to happen I will give it 10 days to finish up as a default. This can go on while tuners are gearing up on the next event; a round two would not delay the start of the next shootout.

In the case that folks are not ready to start on time they will be bumped back one "slot" and I will find the next ready host. Other events may and probably will pop up while these "main" events are happening which should be OK. If it gets overwhelming people will just stop participating on their own which should more or less keeps things where they need to be.

And of course I will advertise as much as I can through our new social outlets. We'll see how those work out for drawing folks to our events.

Any other thoughts? Objections? Pies?

I like pie
.
.
.
.
.
Great . I think this is the kind of organization Harvey had in mind when he made the tread. He seems to be busy with life and other interests (possibly burnt out as well) but we could maybe get him to link some posts in the OP and that way anyone that is willing to maintain an aspect of FITT can adjust and keep up to date on there own time (shootout schedule, up coming events, things to look for, ect). That way this thread can still be functional and maintain its purpose.

My two brain cells ... I still want pie

 

[Motor City Hami]

I am ready with Rally and Street. I have purchased every possible car that can be used in the shootout and compared PP levels. I have tested the newer rally cars vs the 90's beasts and optimized PP levels. I have picked the tracks and tested out my new scoring system.

I think we have to work timing around weekends since many of us can only really play on weekends. That won't exactly meet the 10 days to tune and 10 days to test. Thinking this timing for my shootout.

August 1st - Thread with final details goes live.
Let's make it 12 days to tune to make the tuner deadline on a Sunday night. So tuner deadline will be August 12.

Tester deadline will then be two Sunday's later on August 26.

No tuner limit, but a requirement that all tuners also test. If you don't test by the deadline, your tune will be removed from the final results. I will break testing into groups of ten cars or less.

 

[Ronald6]

Many tuners might not join because of the required driving/testing. I think many are intimidated by some of the times they see and would rather their tune, not their skills be represented. (I'm the opposite, but I'm an admitted freak.) This might scare away tuners rather than attract drivers.

Just my $0.02.

But hay, try it on your shootout and we'll all know.

 

[Motor City Hami]

Many tuners might not join because of the required driving/testing. I think many are intimidated by some of the times they see and would rather their tune, not their skills be represented.

It's the only way that I see to get enough testers. I think with the game entering it's sunset, there needs to be a new method. I don't think that limiting the number of tuners is the answer. That clearly isn't working based on the current one offs.

If I get ten tuners/testers, I think that would be a win. If I get 15 to 20 I will consider that a bonus. I don't think that we will get 30 tuners like we have in the past.

So it would seem the choices are:
1. Limit to ten tunes and get two tester reviews.
or
2. Require all tuners to also test, get 10+ tuners and 10+ tester feedback.

I will test option two.