PURE | GATE 2 - GT300 - Season winners - tony1311 and Team Wedssport

[twistedfirework]

The driver who completes the most laps would be placed higher.
So, someone completing 24 out of 25 laps in D1 would be placed after the D2 drivers that completed the race.

Drivers completing the same number of laps in different divisions, the driver from the higher division should be placed higher.

 

[Müle]

So someone (like Owens at Cape ring) who disconnected right before the finish line would lose all of their spots?

 

[twistedfirework]

So someone (like Owens at Cape ring) who disconnected right before the finish line would lose all of their spots?

As it happens, Jeff did cross the finish line, but I know what you mean.
It would be harsh, but yes, a DNF is a DNF.

 

[SkengD]

Just think of a dc as a engine blow

 

[Spurgy 777]

As it happens, Jeff did cross the finish line, but I know what you mean.
It would be harsh, but yes, a DNF is a DNF.

So you wouldn't finish infront of people who don't get onto the last lap, even if you got to the last lap and DC'd?

 

[twistedfirework]

Lets say division 1 and 2 each have 14 racers and the race is 24 laps.
In D1
12 complete the race
1 completes 20 laps
1 completes 6 laps

D2
10 complete the race
1 completes 22 laps
1 completes 20 laps
1 completes 10 laps
1 completes 5 laps.

The finishing order would be
1-12 = The 12 D1 drivers who completed the race
13-22 = The 10 D2 drivers who Completed the race
23 = the driver who completed 22 laps (D2)
24 = the driver who completed 20 laps (D1)
25 = the driver who completes 20 laps (D2)
26 = the driver who completed 10 laps (D2)
27 = the driver who completed 6 laps (D1)
28 = the driver who completed 5 laps (D2)

I hope this makes sense

 

[IforceV8]

Well if you DC insight of the S/F line on the last lap and have a gap behind you a "blown engine" could still coast across the line and not lose a spot.

 

[twistedfirework]

Well if you DC insight of the S/F line on the last lap and have a gap behind you a "blown engine" could still coast across the line and not lose a spot.

That's exactly what happened to Jeff at Cape Ring Inside.
He D/C'd before the line but his car coasted across the line. The game logged him as crossing the line, so he completed.

 

[SkengD]

Thats some not so bad luck by jeff

 

[BOB0011]

I find the discussion about modifying the series format interesting. There are two things we all have and one of them is an opinion. Being relatively new to the Sim Racing world and older in the real world I have a perspective that may be slightly different for our seasoned pros. As a starting point I would be very hesitant to make too many changes in the series format. The series managed to run 8 races with two rooms almost full for every event. That says a lot about not only the quality of the organization but about how many racers viewed the experience by continuing to participate. That having been said it is always wise to gather the (good) ideas of others and develop a process of constant improvement.
Any changes should be made with a clear understanding of the organizers objectives. A series with an objective to eliminate the variance in driver skill would have different regulations than one that wanted to identify the best of the best racer.
I have never been in favor of performance penalties that slow down the off world drivers. Part of the enjoyment and frustration I have in this hobby is the process of self improvement. Our series provided a measuring stick against some of the world’s best racers. For me there would be no satisfaction in winning under an onerous penalty system. Rather than penalize the fast drivers you may want to consider providing assistance to the less qualified individuals. The objective would be to tighten up the pack to make drafting, passing etc more competitive. One solution would be to provide slower cars with more HP or PP. Race organizing would become somewhat more cumbersome but I am sure that the brain trust could figure a method to make it work. One of the big differences that I noticed was that the quick boys found grip better or faster than us mere mortals. An other alternative would be to allow the drivers with less skill to use tires with more grip. I haven’t thought through any of the fine details but I am sure there is a workable solution.
The problem with change is sometimes there are unforeseen consequences so it should be undertaken with caution and tested to make sure the desired results are achieved. My two cents.

 

[pag42]

I find the discussion about modifying the series format interesting. There are two things we all have and one of them is an opinion. Being relatively new to the Sim Racing world and older in the real world I have a perspective that may be slightly different for our seasoned pros. As a starting point I would be very hesitant to make too many changes in the series format. The series managed to run 8 races with two rooms almost full for every event. That says a lot about not only the quality of the organization but about how many racers viewed the experience by continuing to participate. That having been said it is always wise to gather the (good) ideas of others and develop a process of constant improvement.
Any changes should be made with a clear understanding of the organizers objectives. A series with an objective to eliminate the variance in driver skill would have different regulations than one that wanted to identify the best of the best racer.
I have never been in favor of performance penalties that slow down the off world drivers. Part of the enjoyment and frustration I have in this hobby is the process of self improvement. Our series provided a measuring stick against some of the world’s best racers. For me there would be no satisfaction in winning under an onerous penalty system. Rather than penalize the fast drivers you may want to consider providing assistance to the less qualified individuals. The objective would be to tighten up the pack to make drafting, passing etc more competitive. One solution would be to provide slower cars with more HP or PP. Race organizing would become somewhat more cumbersome but I am sure that the brain trust could figure a method to make it work. One of the big differences that I noticed was that the quick boys found grip better or faster than us mere mortals. An other alternative would be to allow the drivers with less skill to use tires with more grip. I haven’t thought through any of the fine details but I am sure there is a workable solution.
The problem with change is sometimes there are unforeseen consequences so it should be undertaken with caution and tested to make sure the desired results are achieved. My two cents.

And Breath

 

[Spurgy 777]

And Breath

You can breath at the full stops you know .

 

[jtv90069]

Congratulations to SuperSic for his Domination this season and to Sail IC & R1600Turbo rounding out the championship podium.
Thanks to Twisted and the rest of the PURE main group for putting on this excellent competition and also to Outlaw for all his qualifying stewardship during the season.
I exceeded my expectations I had before the season setting a goal of starting in D1 in 4 of the 8 races. In the end I started in D1 5 times and D2 twice and had a best result of 4th in the opening round. I wish I was well enough for the final round at Spa which would have been my best starting position but it couldn't be helped.
So thank you everyone for a great season and I'll certainly be back for another go.

 

[xStretch-]

Why not carry on the points like this:

D1

14th - 10
15th - 9
16th - 8

D2

1st - 7
2nd - 6
3rd - 5

etc etc

 

[OwensRacing]

Why not carry on the points like this:

D1

14th - 10
15th - 9
16th - 8

D2

1st - 7
2nd - 6
3rd - 5

etc etc

The reason for two divisions is only 16 cars allowed per room. If we could get 32 cars in one room. Who is to say the D2 winner wouldn't get a top ten in D1.

I think the first place in D2 should get more then last in D1. Should be some overlap to reward drivers in D2 for podium finishes.

Some good discussion going on.

Obviously this is just brainstorming. What is set up works. Truly doesn't need changed. However it could evolve into something better with the right ideas and architecture. We got some extremely good brains in PURE. I trust whatever is decided by the decision makers will be fair and awesome as always.

 

[Dr_Watson]

The reason for two divisions is only 16 cars allowed per room. If we could get 32 cars in one room. Who is to say the D2 winner wouldn't get a top ten in D1.

I think the first place in D2 should get more then last in D1. Should be some overlap to reward drivers in D2 for podium finishes.

Some good discussion going on.

Obviously this is just brainstorming. What is set up works. Truly doesn't need changed. However it could evolve into something better with the right ideas and architecture. We got some extremely good brains in PURE. I trust whatever is decided by the decision makers will be fair and awesome as always.

That's how the points work right now, and the whole purpose of the podium bonuses. D2 winner is usually higher point total than the bottom 2 D1 drivers.
Now that we've run 2 series with that point scheme I have enough data to tweak the math a bit.
Mainly what I was talking about is the "spread" between positions. And the bonus values themselves could use some tweaking.
It works well, I just would like to eliminate some week to week inconsistencies created by a variable D1 size.
And the aforementioned dropping all DNFs to the bottom of the tree.

 

[xStretch-]

Ah I see

But it could be a good tempery solution as PD have not even mastered the whole 16 player lobbys yet let alone 32

 

[Dragonwhisky]

LOL. As soon as they figure out how to allow 32 cars on track at the same time we'll suddenly discover we have 48 cars qualified.

 

[OwensRacing]

LOL. As soon as they figure out how to allow 32 cars on track at the same time we'll suddenly discover we have 48 cars qualified.

16 just isn't close to a real field of cars though. 24 minimal would be nice on GT6 or PS4.

 

[SkengD]

Considering that i was just racing 2-4 in gt4 i am quite satisfied with 16 on track in gt5

 

[SteelToedSloth]

Thanks to all who helped make this a fun, well-run and competitive league. Given my late entry into the league, I'm really disappointed it ended so quickly.

I feel the D1/D2 cut off is a good idea (keep what we've been doing all season). I can't think of a better way to have racers of equal competitiveness race together. Having that "not yet known" D1/D2 cutoff is a good motivator for me to practice.

Having those who DQ'd in D1 bumped down below those who finished a complete race in D2 is a good idea. It was often frustrating having some people who only completed 6 laps in D1 still score more points than all of those in D2.

However, what if a racer was having a particularly bad race in D1 and just barely didn't finish the race d/t the countdown ending. He would have likely finished a complete race in D2. That racer shouldn't score less points than all of the D2 finishers. Maybe it could be those who don't finish 90% of the D1 race are scored below D2 finishers or something like that.

Any thoughts on keeping GT300 cars or switching to a new car format?

 

[Dr_Watson]

Any thoughts on keeping GT300 cars or switching to a new car format?

Our next *big* event will be GT500.

 

[Adventuruss]

Really wished I could have joined in in this. Hopefully the next series will fall in on Sunday.

 

[twistedfirework]

To complete the standings, we still need the lap that Sers disconected on and his fastest lap from the D2 race. Could someone check the replay and let us know?
Cheers

Can someone with the D2 replay get us this info please.

 

[SkengD]

Ok sorry thought you got that already ill pm you in a few mins

 

[twistedfirework]

Ok sorry thought you got that already ill pm you in a few mins

Thanks, got it 👍

 

[Denilson]

However, what if a racer was having a particularly bad race in D1 and just barely didn't finish the race d/t the countdown ending. He would have likely finished a complete race in D2. That racer shouldn't score less points than all of the D2 finishers. Maybe it could be those who don't finish 90% of the D1 race are scored below D2 finishers or something like that.

Any thoughts on keeping GT300 cars or switching to a new car format?

First of all: Hi Steel. Glad to see you again.

We've had a 75% completion rule previously, but it got removed. It's simply too tough to complete 74% (or 89% in your example), and not score any points. It's heartbreaking as stewards to put a 0 in the column after such a race, believe me..

But in your example, you mention someone who only complete like 6 laps.
Perhaps have a scale of degrading points. If you DC after 50% of the race distance, you get 100% points for last in D1 (If you're the first one who DC's that is.), if you complete 40-49%, it's 75% of last.
30-39% equals 50% of last
20-29% is 25% of last
0-19% = 0%

Or maybee tweak the numbers a tad, but something along these lines should be a good compromize imo..

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

The penalty for not qualifying is already to start from the rear of the field. You may have a point on the late q penalty. We could bring the deadline closer to the green flag (say, 4 hours) and do away with the late Q.

I concur. If we do want to keep late Q, then the cut line should be set in stone at the deadline. If, for example, we have 13 in D1, then the late Q'ers are vying for 14th-16th, rather than taking a mid-pack position and pushing people that Q'ed on time into D2.

I like the idea of placing all DNF's after all finishers, regardless of division.

I prefer applying a percentage based on number of completed laps, much like what Dennis is proposing.

I agree 100%


The system we already use is in my opinion, perfect!

Going to play devil's advocate here.

Attendance, unfortunately, is something that we can't predict, and in turn, that makes the number of spots available in Division 1 vary every week. Therefore, qualifying 11th would place someone in D2 if only 20 show up, but D1 if there's 21 the next week. Also, ever since I bought GT5, what made me the driver I am today was not driving against those close to my skill level, but with people that were much better than me. If we are PURE Racing Evolution, it's not just the format that should be fluid, but the driver's capabilities as well. If we go "fast people race D1, slow people race D2", then it limits someone's potential. As a D1 regular, I'm willing to sacrifice some close competition, if it means those further back have a better chance at racing those a skill level above them.

Finally, the current format places too much pressure into Q'ing, and we get too accustomed to driving our cars like it's a time trial. Then we carry that mentality into the race, where that doesn't always work. I saw this play out during the last NA GT Academy, when we had practice races to get everyone ready. Many were faster than me on the time sheet, but when the checkers flew, I finished ahead of just about everyone else, because others drove like it was Q and either went off, or created incidents. If there's anything we could do so people focus more on consistency and good racecraft than time trialing, then the racing will only get better. Not that there's anything wrong about setting PB's (I have a bad habit for doing this), but you don't have to set them during the race to be competitive. You just have to be faster than the driver ahead of you.

And that's my two dollars and two cents (adjusted for inflation).

 

[Müle]

So we're putting together a short, 6 race PURE series that will use the current GATE timeslot.

The question is, would you guys rather use the Nissan Silvia RM, or the TVR Tuscan RM?

 

[SkengD]

Nissan