FITT - Moving on to GT6!

[Johnnypenso]

Been thinking about the Drivers Choice point system and my suggestion would be a 5 point scale.
1=Nearly undrivable/worse than stock
2=Below Average/no better than stock
3=Average/some improvement on stock
4=Above average/greatly improved but still has some minor drawbacks
5=Outstanding/nearly flawless driving experience

While a larger scale can make for a finer shading of the individual scoring, it can also lead to more issues for the individual testers to contend with. A larger scale risks opening the testers up to more questions as to why tuner A got a 8 and tuner B only got a 7 despite comments that indicate both were above average tunes.

One of the good things with the DC in the last event was that the 3 choices for scoring were clearly defined making it fairly easy for the testers to assign their scores and back it up in their reviews on each one. The scale was probably a bit too narrow but making it overly large would make it more difficult to place an easy definition for each point on the scale.

As for how to incorporate the DC into the final scoring for an event that just becomes a matter of manipulating the numbers and the size of the DC scale doesn't matter.

As for a possible wagon shootout I agree that the 2 Stagea's belong in the upper group as do the 2 Mitsubishi's and the Caldina.
I'd also recommend dropping the Element (more of a SUV than a wagon or minivan), the BMW's and the PT Cruiser (hot hatchs not wagons really).

If you don't drive the car stock how can you compare the tune to stock? I haven't driven 95% of the cars in the game in stock condition, if I signed up as a tester, there's now way i'd double down on my testing just to see how a car drives stock.

Your logic on the 1-5 scale can also work the other way. You could have two cars, maybe the same car, where one is slightly better than the other, the comments reflect that, the time is slightly better, and yet there isn't enough wiggle room to give one 7 and one an 8 to better reflect that slight difference, so both end up with a 4 and the driver with the slightly better tune feels shortchanged. In other words, both are "above average/greatly improved but still have some minor drawbacks", one is slightly better than the other, but both get the same score.

The finer the adjustment the more accurate the results and the less you rely on a single score, one way or the other, to determine an outcome.

 

[VTiRoj]

I'm guessing he doesn't mean stock as in factory, but stock as in it has the racing transmission, racing suspension, etc. but the settings haven't been changed from their defaults.

 

[XDesperado67]

I'm guessing he doesn't mean stock as in factory, but stock as in it has the racing transmission, racing suspension, etc. but the settings haven't been changed from their defaults.

Basically yes, but really that is just a suggestion for wording to give the testers guidelines for each score. Could just as easily be defined as:
1) no way it can ever win a race, lucky to complete a single clean lap.
2) slim chance that it could win a race given poor opponents and a bit of luck.
3) can hang with most cars in its class so luck and driver skill plays key role in winning
4) superior tune makes it strong contender to win in class even against good drivers
5) makes the driver look like a champ even against more skilled opponents.

@Johnnypenso my biggest thing is that testers have some sort of clear definitions for each number on the scale regardless of how large that scale is. Without those sorts of definitions the DC becomes much more subjective in nature and you risk losing objectivity. I try to be very objective in my reviews and DC scores when I do test, but without clear guidelines it can easily be influenced by my personal feelings about someone even if it is on a subconscious level. Your my buddy/part of my garage I give you better marks, you've rubbed me wrong recently with your comments I give you poorer marks or I might reverse those because I don't want people to think I'm playing favorites.
The finer the scale used the harder it becomes to assign clear definitions for each gradient.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Basically yes, but really that is just a suggestion for wording to give the testers guidelines for each score. Could just as easily be defined as:
1) no way it can ever win a race, lucky to complete a single clean lap.
2) slim chance that it could win a race given poor opponents and a bit of luck.
3) can hang with most cars in its class so luck and driver skill plays key role in winning
4) superior tune makes it strong contender to win in class even against good drivers
5) makes the driver look like a champ even against more skilled opponents.

@Johnnypenso my biggest thing is that testers have some sort of clear definitions for each number on the scale regardless of how large that scale is. Without those sorts of definitions the DC becomes much more subjective in nature and you risk losing objectivity. I try to be very objective in my reviews and DC scores when I do test, but without clear guidelines it can easily be influenced by my personal feelings about someone even if it is on a subconscious level. Your my buddy/part of my garage I give you better marks, you've rubbed me wrong recently with your comments I give you poorer marks or I might reverse those because I don't want people to think I'm playing favorites.
The finer the scale used the harder it becomes to assign clear definitions for each gradient.

Why could you not just assign for example, 9-10 to "makes the driver look like a champ even against more skilled opponents"? I might test two cars and think they both fall into that category, but one is slightly better than the other so I give it a 10 and the other a 9, as opposed to giving them the same score. You could have the exact same categories you suggested above, clear definitions for all, and a range of scores within each category to allow more accurate scoring. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

I might even go so far as to use the Driver's Preference Score as a completely separate category with it's own winner. That way the fastest car would be the Shootout Winner, the car most preferred by drivers with no relation to lap times whatsoever also becomes the Driver's Preference Winner and highlights a Tuner's ability to tune cars that are appealing to a wide range of driver's even if they didn't pick the fastest car to tune.

That way you'd have 2 winners of every competition and there would be less pressure as a tuner to just choose what you think is the fastest car to tune, as strategy that doesn't appeal to everyone, and tuners can be rewarded in a major way for overall tuning ability, not just fastest lap.

 

[CSLACR]

Why could you not just assign for example, 9-10 to "makes the driver look like a champ even against more skilled opponents"? I might test two cars and think they both fall into that category, but one is slightly better than the other so I give it a 10 and the other a 9, as opposed to giving them the same score.

Sold.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

9-10 score for driver like a champ .... elusive score for me, but I like the idea.

 

[XDesperado67]

@Johhnypennso I thought I explained why having multiple values with the same definition could be problematical for testers. With what you just suggested does tune A) really feel better than tune B) warranting a 10 for A and 9 for B? Or is it simply that you prefer say the looks of car A, hate the color of car B, are friends with the tuner of car A, car B's tuner is brand new to the forum and completely unknown to you, or a host of other reasons that could be affecting your final DC awards either consciously or unconsciously?

 

[krenkme]

I do like the braking up the times and DC (that is what we have in the current shootout ). It, I think, encourages someone to take a lesser car and just make it a joy to drive without worrying if they picked the fastest car. Just my 2¢

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johhnypennso I thought I explained why having multiple values with the same definition could be problematical for testers. With what you just suggested does tune A) really feel better than tune B) warranting a 10 for A and 9 for B? Or is it simply that you prefer say the looks of car A, hate the color of car B, are friends with the tuner of car A, car B's tuner is brand new to the forum and completely unknown to you, or a host of other reasons that could be affecting your final DC awards either consciously or unconsciously?

I understood your reasoning, I just don't agree with it...lol. The "possibility" of someone choosing one car over another because of colour, friendship or any other reason, exists no matter what system you use for scoring. I could just as easily give my friend a 5 or the colour of car I prefer a 5 and one I don't like, friend or colour a 3. I prefer to assume that most testers aren't going to have that kind of issue and design a system based on the presumption of honest scoring, rather than a presumption that some testers may or may not be influenced by other factors.

 

[CSLACR]

@Johhnypennso I thought I explained why having multiple values with the same definition could be problematical for testers. With what you just suggested does tune A) really feel better than tune B) warranting a 10 for A and 9 for B? Or is it simply that you prefer say the looks of car A, hate the color of car B, are friends with the tuner of car A, car B's tuner is brand new to the forum and completely unknown to you, or a host of other reasons that could be affecting your final DC awards either consciously or unconsciously?

1-5 scale:
Tester favors - one gets a 4, one gets a 5. 80%

1-10 scale:
Tester favors - one gets 10, one gets a 9. 90%


If the problem is actually and honestly in the subconscious, you'd be hurt less on the 1-10 scale not being the favorite.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I do like the braking up the times and DC (that is what we have in the current shootout ). It, I think, encourages someone to take a lesser car and just make it a joy to drive without worrying if they picked the fastest car. Just my 2¢

No doubt. I believe it would create two competitions in one event. Not everyone wants to just tune the fastest car, in fact, judging by the competitions I've been in, most people don't want to tune the fastest car, more than half the cars are tuned for fun/style/personal preference rather than all out speed. If the right emphasis is placed on both aspects of the competition, then both become just as important as well they should be. It would open up a whole new world for many tuners and might encourage more participation in general. And a double win of each aspect of the competition would be a big feather in the cap of any tuner:idea:

Winning on speed is as much about picking the right car as it is about the tune. Tuning your car to appeal to the broadest audience is more about the tuner than the car.

 

[Zuel]

Has any of the tuners take a look at the PP grouping chart I released?

 

[ACSR421]

2.10 update and its impact on events.

I had taken a break from GT5 recently and was starting to play GT5 again when this half baked update was dropped on us yesterday. Once again PD managed to fix what wasn't broken and then screwed the pooch on the pp system. I can only assume they were trying to make the cars closer in performance for a given pp number. I expect another update in the coming weeks trying to fix the 2.10 update. This will also make any changes made to my tunes irrelevent between now and then.

For now it looks like I'll be extending my break from GT5 and was wondering what the other members plan to do in the coming weeks. Will you roll with the changes or hold off and see if PD can actually fix this problem they created?

 

[Johnnypenso]

2.10 update and its impact on events.

I had taken a break from GT5 recently and was starting to play GT5 again when this half baked update was dropped on us yesterday. Once again PD managed to fix what wasn't broken and then screwed the pooch on the pp system. I can only assume they were trying to make the cars closer in performance for a given pp number. I expect another update in the coming weeks trying to fix the 2.10 update. This will also make any changes made to my tunes irrelevent between now and then.

For now it looks like I'll be extending my break from GT5 and was wondering what the other members plan to do in the coming weeks. Will you roll with the changes or hold off and see if PD can actually fix this problem they created?

I was just getting into tuning for CSL's Nurb PP Board, had a few cars ready to go, but that's all out the window now. I'll focus on DeadNutsEven Racing as usual as it's immune from pretty much any change or update PD could ever make. If I knew this change was permanent I'd like to see a huge Shootout to test a wide variety of street cars, perhaps limiting it to no more than 2 of any model to promote variety. But seeing as how PD is just as likely to say "oops" in a week or a few it would still be fun, but could end up completely meaningless.

I'd like to believe that in doing these Shootouts we're creating a valuable database for the GT5 Community but with all the changes and updates a lot of stuff is obsolete by now and with this update, the relative performance of cars has changed, meaning yesterday's Champion could be today's also-ran.

 

[Motor City Hami]

For now it looks like I'll be extending my break from GT5 and was wondering what the other members plan to do in the coming weeks. Will you roll with the changes or hold off and see if PD can actually fix this problem they created?

I will continue to play - business as usual. I have a job, wife, kid and other hobbies, so I really never planned to have time to tune all 1000 cars in the game. I will just continue to tune what I want to drive and label each tune with the related update. People who use my tunes can decide how old of a tune they want to try out.

 

[ACSR421]

I was just getting into tuning for CSL's Nurb PP Board, had a few cars ready to go, but that's all out the window now. I'll focus on DeadNutsEven Racing as usual as it's immune from pretty much any change or update PD could ever make. If I knew this change was permanent I'd like to see a huge Shootout to test a wide variety of street cars, perhaps limiting it to no more than 2 of any model to promote variety. But seeing as how PD is just as likely to say "oops" in a week or a few it would still be fun, but could end up completely meaningless.

I'd like to believe that in doing these Shootouts we're creating a valuable database for the GT5 Community but with all the changes and updates a lot of stuff is obsolete by now and with this update, the relative performance of cars has changed, meaning yesterday's Champion could be today's also-ran.

Yeah, its the obsolete part that has me questioning if my time and effort are worth creating tunes. Although I don't release many of the cars I tune their are several tuned in my garage that I use online and continue to update each time.

On the bright side we have plenty of cars to sort out with some new pp gems to find at least until the next update changes the game once again.


Edit : Well said Hami, I just updated my Weider HSV and was able to add 6pp after 2.10. now I need to get it posted before the next update.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I love Supras even more with 2.10, street and race cars They get nice helping of PP reduction, now they can be real monsters like they should, long live 2JZ

 

[CSLACR]

So who's doing what now?
I haven't hosted a shootout in a year so I'm starting to get itchy...

 

[Motor City Hami]

I have an idea that sort of crosses the single make challenge with getting multiple cars tuned. How many tuners do we currently have interested... 10 or 15? And how many test drivers... 5 to 10?

What about a street car PP challenge on comfort softs or sport hard. Make a grouping of single cars challenges available and crown a winner of each group. The winners earn their way into the finals to all tune the same car. Example below.

Group A - Toyota Supra 450PP - Sport Hard
Tuner 1
Tuner 2
Tuner 3
Tuner 4
Tuner 5 - limited to five entries and winner moves on to the finals

Group B - Mustang GT 2008 - 450PP - Sport Hard
Tuner 1
Tuner 2
Tuner 3
Tuner 4
Tuner 5 - limited to five entries and winner moves on to the finals

Group C - Lotus Carlton 450PP - Sport Hard
Tuner 1
Tuner 2
Tuner 3
Tuner 4
Tuner 5 - limited to five entries and winner moves on to the finals

Group D - Mazda Miata 400PP - Comfort Soft
Tuner 1
Tuner 2
Tuner 3
Tuner 4
Tuner 5 - limited to five entries and winner moves on to the finals

Finals - Random, unanounced car until host reveals after group testing.

We could require that a tuner entry into a group means that you have to test one other group? If you want to enter two groups, you then will have to test two groups?

I think this needs a little work, but could be a nice way to compete one car at a time, yet provide the community with more than just 15 tunes for the same car.

 

[CSLACR]

I'm thinking there might be interest for a second annual Nordschleife shootout, I was thinking two separate classes this time, one slower and grippier to be easier on testers, and a higher more difficult class with less grip.

I think 450PP SH would net us a couple Mustang's, Carlton's, and Supra's on it's own, plus maybe a few others that we could find.
If SH is enough grip not to scare away testers that'd be perfect imo, maybe coupled with div 2 running 550PP on SS?
All the tunes/best laps for each different car could get linked up into the Nordschleife thread as the fastest tunes for those cars too, for those that enjoy that.

 

[XDesperado67]

I'm thinking there might be interest for a second annual Nordschleife shootout, I was thinking two separate classes this time, one slower and grippier to be easier on testers, and a higher more difficult class with less grip.

I think 450PP SH would net us a couple Mustang's, Carlton's, and Supra's on it's own, plus maybe a few others that we could find.
If SH is enough grip not to scare away testers that'd be perfect imo, maybe coupled with div 2 running 550PP on SS?
All the tunes/best laps for each different car could get linked up into the Nordschleife thread as the fastest tunes for those cars too, for those that enjoy that.

Sounds fun to me, though to be honest with the 2:10 update 550PP scares me a bit now as the top cars are more like what used to be 600+PP.

 

[wildheart90]

That sounds pretty cool. ^

When is the next competition? I am pretty keen to kick on after the clueless shootout!

 

[CSLACR]

Sounds fun to me, though to be honest with the 2:10 update 550PP scares me a bit now as the top cars are more like what used to be 600+PP.

Enter an 800HP car at your own risk?

That sounds pretty cool. ^

When is the next competition? I am pretty keen to kick on after the clueless shootout!

Theorteically it could start tomorrow.

 

[DigitalBaka]

As soon as someone is ready I would say. Unless there is something I haven't seen, which is possible, there should be nothing left in the pipeline as far as scheduled events. The fast a furious fall schedule seems to have tapped our list dry. If Hami or CSL is ready we can go with either one.

I don't do much but I thought I should say thanks to everyone for keeping things going smoothly in my absence. Looks like Newdriver and krenkme kept it going for us, so an extra thank you to those two for their job of hosting as well as all the participants. Looking forward to more FITT this year.

 

[wildheart90]

Theorteically it could start tomorrow.

I like your theory.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I am not up for hosting right now. I did the one right before Krenkme. Let someone else lead the next couple.

Also, I'm not much of a Ring rat. It's alot for testers to take on. Maybe if the scoring was less about lap time and more about driver's choice? It's hard for most testers to run consistent laps over that long of a track. I may be in the minority, so run the challenge that you want, CSLACR. Ronald and some of our other testers are regulars of the Ring.

 

[DigitalBaka]

It could be done with both (time/driver's choice) separately as krenkme did with the last one. Easy enough to implement and those that don't feel they are good enough or consistent enough on a track that long can still contribute in a meaningful way.

 

[CSLACR]

How would your scoring system work for it MCH? I was wondering about that, as I think with either 1-5 or 1-10 for DC would make it work nicely.


I'd love to think of or hear a way to score the cars so that awesome-handling cars stock don't get a ton of dc points just for being great handling cars stock if anyone has one.
Only thing off the top of my head is to have testers rank the cars in difficulty, along with a DC rating, and using some math to try to even it out a bit.

Making it a separate category with PM'd results like krenkme's could be good too, for the difficulty and dc ratings.

 

[Motor City Hami]

How would your scoring system work for it MCH? I was wondering about that, as I think with either 1-5 or 1-10 for DC would make it work nicely.
QUOTE]

I like the suggestions that were offered during my race car challenge of DC ranking 1-10. That seems to work really well. The challenge is deciding how much should lap times make up. My lap time method seems to put everyone pretty close. What seems to be working is 100 points for lap times.

 

[Johnnypenso]

90 for lap times, 10 for DC for a max score of 100..perfect.