GTP Online Racing Bureau (GTP ORB) Now Hiring!

[CAM]

Yeah. You should probably just have first place be 16 points and last place be 1 point and then we can average out the spots to round out non-decimal point totals.

Formula for that is 16 divided by number of racers times the racer's finishing position = racer's point earning for said race.

 

[Downhill Dino]

^ I was going to say that.

 

[CAM]

^ I was going to say that.

Haha, nobody can keep up with my math skills . Thankfully, it comes fairly easily and I don't have to sit and study all the time .

 

[gogatrs]

Yeah. You should probably just have first place be 16 points and last place be 1 point and then we can average out the spots to round out non-decimal point totals.

Formula for that is 16 divided by number of racers times the racer's finishing position = racer's point earning for said race.

Wouldn't it be divided by finishing position?
And then multiply by 5,4,3,2, or 1 depending on the star rating.

While that may work, it may also be relatively complicated.
That's not all that easy for for a series director to do after EVERY single race.
If we came up with a Google Doc however, that has all those formulas already plugged in, that could make things much easier.

I'm not sure about the 16 points for first and 1 point for last though.
Simple yes, but it's very unbalanced. Meaning, it heavily factors the losers/people with penalties.

 

[CAM]

I could plug any two numbers in (as alternatives to the 1 and 16), and no, because say you have 8 racers and you finish 4th. 16 divided by 8 is 2, and 2 times 4 is 8, which is the point allotment (in the current 1 to 16 system, which is easily changed) for finishing 8th in a 16 person race. Easy 👍.

 

[gogatrs]

I could plug any two numbers in (as alternatives to the 1 and 16), and no, because say you have 8 racers and you finish 4th. 16 divided by 8 is 2, and 2 times 4 is 8, which is the point allotment (in the current 1 to 16 system, which is easily changed) for finishing 8th in a 16 person race. Easy 👍.

Yes, but if you multiply times where you finish, wouldn't that mean that if you finish first, you get fewer points than second?

 

[MitchZ06]

Well....if 16 racers finish we end up with: 16/16 = 1, 1*1=1, thus first gets 1 point. Fail?

 

[CAM]

Yes, but if you multiply times where you finish, wouldn't that mean that if you finish first, you get fewer points than second?

Crap. Hold on, I'll come up with another one.

 

[gogatrs]

Crap. Hold on, I'll come up with another one.

Fail.
Lol JK.

 

[MitchZ06]

Argh, no sleep makes formula creating hard work...

 

[CAM]

Yeah, I'm sitting here just staring at my piece of paper. Give me a few minutes.

 

[MitchZ06]

Maybe:

16/.16 = 100
15/.16 = 93.75
14/.16 = 87.5
13/.16 = 81.25
12/.16 = 75
11/.16 = 68.75
10/.16 = 62.5
9/.16 = 56.25
8/.16 = 50
7/.16 = 43.75
6/.16 = 37.5
5/.16 = 31.25
4/.16 = 25
3/.16 = 18.75
2/.16 = 12.5
1/.16 = 6.25

Lop off that extra shamozzle through the use of rounding and it'd be something like this (based on the .16 representing 16 finishers):

1 = 100
2 = 94
3 = 88
4 = 81
5 = 75
6 = 69 ()
7 = 63
8 = 56
9 = 50
10 = 44
11 = 38
12 = 31
13 = 25
14 = 19
15 = 13
16 = 6

Thoughts?

 

[gogatrs]

Big numbers make my head hurt.
I'm trying to think of something that will give last place zero points...

 

[CAM]

Yeah, cause the only global formula I can make (I'm trying to make it accommodate rooms of all sizes, not working) is way too complex for a Google Docs sheet. Maybe we should only allow series to have certain amounts of people, making it easier for us to have a points system? Or we could make 8 different systems (seeing that no series would have less than 8 racers?) to do away with the formulas? And we wouldn't have to take into account the level of the series, since only wins matter in that regard.

EDIT: We should probably just make 6 or 8 different systems to our liking, if you bring zero into this I don't think I can mathematically do that .

 

[MitchZ06]

Last shouldn't get zero points tho...

The formula as I've got it there is the order reversed (that number would be how many finishers, 9-1, 12-1, etc) divided by .(the number that finished the race) and would give points accordingly, round the final number up and it'd be easy to calculate.

 

[Barra333]

I dont have the time or inclination to participate in this little (growing) project you guys have got going, but it does sound interesting and could work if done well and simple enough to maintain (both of which you are well on the way to).

Anyways, on the subject of scoring points for a end of season table, why not just keep it simple and have a couple of different points systems, depending on the number of participants in each race?

In its simplest form:
12-16 drivers - 1st gets 20pts, down to 0 for 13th to 16th
8 -12 drivers - 1st gets 17pts, 0 for 10th to 12th
8 or less - 15 for 1st, 0 for 7th -8th

Obviously the points score would have to be discussed, but it gives people a bit of a reward for winning a in big grid, and requires hardly any thought once set up.

Just an idea, feel free to use/amend/discard as you wish.

EDIT: Kinda tree'd while I was typing.

 

[CAM]

Well done Mitch. But I think either would work, multiple systems or what you suggested.

 

[MitchZ06]

Using the system I've got there putting it into a spreadsheet as a formula shouldn't be hard (box for finishers, this would then 'write' the rest of the formula) so it'd be simple and easy to do IMO and would reward people for actually staying and racing as the more people are there the more points you get.

 

[Wardez]

What's the problem with using just one unified system, multi-class racing?

There's no complication there.

No need for relative grading in the points system.

We'd use a tweaked Formula 1 scoring system that goes all the way to 16 players (btw I believe we should advise against using a full 16 player grid due to current GT5 online server lack of reliability.)
Maybe I'm not seeing the problem here but shouldn't it just be that if only, say, 10 people participate there would be no problem in keeping the scoring the same?

Remember the 2005 F1 Indianapolis GP? Only six cars entered, but they all got full points the same as if there was a full grid.

If we were to go for scores instead of points then it would turn more into a racing RPG. I wouldn't mind that but but we should all keep throwing out ideas on the overarching points structure.

@Lapierre4
I'm so glad you found the thread man! Haven't seen you in a strong minute. So you know guys, him offering his instructional services is just awesome, he's one of the fastest drivers in the world.
Thanks for the input.

@Mitch
Don't call Miatas low-class racing till you've run it hah, but I'm just messing too, I know what you mean. In real life it maybe low class but in GT5 it's not any more expensive to run in an LMP race (which I think's a completely wrong type of car to race in GT imho) than a kei car so.

But what you said about grading tracks is exactly the type of thing I talked about early on with the racing organizer's kit package (the .rar thing)

Although the information we're gonna write up will be available in the OP of the organization's thread it will also be a fundamental part of the package we're going to put together to quickly get new organizers up to speed.

Tracks will be recommended for certain series and each track will be broken down as to why it is or is not good for certain types of series.
The .rar will include .psd logo and OP rule templates (which I'll draw up, I've been using PS for years) so people can fill in everything easiler with their own information.
There will also be an alternative simple .txt forum code template for people to use.

I'll draw up a quick tutorial on using Google Spreadsheets to great effect. Simple productivity hacks for organizing series. Also a bit of history on different series and success stories from the GT5 Online GTP section. Also an internet and connection optimization guide for good measure.

 

[CAM]

Very nice. But its gatrs decision. I don't mind either way, I just want to be done with numbers for today .

Sounds like a plan if you can put it together Wardez 👍.

 

[MitchZ06]

Yeah I didn't mean it to be ****box derby, more like it's club racing whilst LMP is professional. No doubt there'd be some fast guys carving up in Spec Miata

Yeah this maths stuff is doing my head in. I vote for the simplest formula (mine, totally unbiased) as it offers the greatest rewards for those who finish the race and is deadset easy to chuck into spreadsheets.

 

[Wardez]

We'd use a tweaked Formula 1 scoring system that goes all the way to 16 players (btw I believe we should advise against using a full 16 player grid due to current GT5 online server lack of reliability.)
Maybe I'm not seeing the problem here but shouldn't it just be that if only, say, 10 people participate there would be no problem in keeping the scoring the same?

Remember the 2005 F1 Indianapolis GP? Only six cars entered, but they all got full points the same as if there was a full grid.

 

[gogatrs]

I dont have the time or inclination to participate in this little (growing) project you guys have got going, but it does sound interesting and could work if done well and simple enough to maintain (both of which you are well on the way to).

Anyways, on the subject of scoring points for a end of season table, why not just keep it simple and have a couple of different points systems, depending on the number of participants in each race?

In its simplest form:
12-16 drivers - 1st gets 20pts, down to 0 for 13th to 16th
8 -12 drivers - 1st gets 17pts, 0 for 10th to 12th
8 or less - 15 for 1st, 0 for 7th -8th

Obviously the points score would have to be discussed, but it gives people a bit of a reward for winning a in big grid, and requires hardly any thought once set up.

Just an idea, feel free to use/amend/discard as you wish.

Yeah, I think that's the way to go.

But maybe we shouldn't even bother with the points system.
This may upset some of the series leaders as it would be taking away from their power, which we do still want them to have.
We're here to make things easier, not to take control of everything.

Does anyone else feel that way?

 

[MitchZ06]

It's not taking control tho, it's giving them the tools to make their lives easier.

And Wardez, I'm thinking a 'failsafe' system say if only 8 or less show up a set amount of points is given (with my system it'd be "8 finishers" even if it's just 6 that raced).

 

[CAM]

I mean, I think we need to keep in mind that we need to just get off the ground first. Maybe we should skip this until we have a couple of series seasons under our belt? I think we should leave this to the series starters for a little while, just so we can get acclimated with running everything. I think we have enough influence to start off.

 

[TimberW]

I think finishers should get at least some points, dnf or dns should get 0 points. If the series have 16 players participating, but only 10 players showed up, the 10 who showed up shouldn't be penalised for the 6 that didn't show up, therefore, scaling shouldn't be done. That's my thoughts.

 

[gogatrs]

Remember the 2005 F1 Indianapolis GP? Only six cars entered, but they all got full points the same as if there was a full grid.

That is a good point, but so is Mitch's. 👍
Perhaps a majority vote should decide?

 

[Wardez]

It's not taking control tho, it's giving them the tools to make their lives easier.

And Wardez, I'm thinking a 'failsafe' system say if only 8 or less show up a set amount of points is given (with my system it'd be "8 finishers" even if it's just 6 that raced).

Yeah but why should those people get scaled points?

I think that coming up with a points system every one uses would make it easier for people since they wouldn't have to come up with their own.

Points aren't a big deal, I don't know what people need to come up with some ridiculous schemes for them. I feel the only people that would want to change them are those who have series dedicated to a real life series and want to use their points. But it doesn't make sense to use the system from, for example, NASCAR since there's not 40 cars out on track.

If I was coming in as a new organizer I'd think it was cool that there's already a gold standard system in place I could use.

 

[MitchZ06]

Scaling encourages people to show up tho, the more that show up the more points you get. It's designed to ensure larger grids, more competition and more of a need to actually finish the race.

 

[gogatrs]

I mean, I think we need to keep in mind that we need to just get off the ground first. Maybe we should skip this until we have a couple of series seasons under our belt? I think we should leave this to the series starters for a little while, just so we can get acclimated with running everything. I think we have enough influence to start off.

You're right.
Maybe save the points for a later date.
Then we can have ALL parties involved vote on it.