ROC - FC Edition: Round 2 Specifics (FINISHED)

[Biggles]

Yes, essentially, though its difficult to make that corner any tighter without losing some speed, I had approached the corner normally but hadn't anticipated him managing to keep on my inside. Having already committed to the corner on my usual line, its difficult to alter line quickly especially because he was already in a position where I was unable to turn back in.
I disagree its any different to GT5P, and I'm fully aware we can rub bumpers safely, we did several times during the race as we battled. Its just this corner sequence is one you need to be very careful with and have to plan ahead.

I think it IS different from GT5P, because in GT5P if you have ANY contact with another car, even very minor, it leads to the outside car being pushed off. As a result, (polite) racers in GT5P always try & avoid any kind of contact. In FC I think it's much more reasonable to aggressively push for position in a 50/50 situation, as the cars do not react as much to contact. The only limiting factor is the frame rate stutter (or worse) which can make it very difficult to judge where exactly your opponent's car is.

Having said that, that corner at Mont Tremblant is probably the scariest corner in FC - I wouldn't fancy taking it side-by-side with anybody, & if I had to, I'd want to make sure I was on the INSIDE!

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ok, I have two more round 3 entrants. Fairplay won his race against Energiya. And Graffen just told me that he is unable to race so he officialy withdraws from the event and I get on to Round 3 ... pity we didn't do the event race earlier this week, when we did several practise races.


All I need now is the Piotr vs. Host_Killer result to get the 6 round "winners" (and after that, to check the leaderboard to get the 2 fastest losers), therefore selecting the 8 players that will race Round 3, therefore begining the real "deathmatches" part of this event, because from Round 3 onwards, winners go through, losers get out.

 

[Ardius]

I think it IS different from GT5P, because in GT5P if you have ANY contact with another car, even very minor, it leads to the outside car being pushed off. As a result, (polite) racers in GT5P always try & avoid any kind of contact. In FC I think it's much more reasonable to aggressively push for position in a 50/50 situation, as the cars do not react as much to contact. The only limiting factor is the frame rate stutter (or worse) which can make it very difficult to judge where exactly your opponent's car is.

Having said that, that corner at Mont Tremblant is probably the scariest corner in FC - I wouldn't fancy taking it side-by-side with anybody, & if I had to, I'd want to make sure I was on the INSIDE!

Then you must have never driven any car below 600PP in GT5P online because we have had many Touring Car-esque bumper car races in all sorts of cars and tracks.
We had lots of contact and lots of fun, which is why I think racing so called "shopping cars" is a lot more fun than people think it is in Gran Turismo. Just because the cars are slower on the straights doesn't mean the racing action is any less fun, in fact its more fun because you can get away with more.

What you experienced is a problem not with the game, but a problem with general high-performance cars and racing cars. The faster and more twitchy the cars get, the bigger the consequences are when there is contact. When it gets to F1 levels you avoid contact at all costs.

If you're trying to suggest I was being too cautious with my racing room, this is not the case, at least not in the sense of "you're too used to other games". It was simply how I stated, this wasn't an issue of me giving too much racing room, it was just I couldn't turn in without making us both spin out, and this does happen in FC and particularly at this corner.

 

[Biggles]

Then you must have never driven any car below 600PP in GT5P online because we have had many Touring Car-esque bumper car races in all sorts of cars and tracks.
We had lots of contact and lots of fun, which is why I think racing so called "shopping cars" is a lot more fun than people think it is in Gran Turismo. Just because the cars are slower on the straights doesn't mean the racing action is any less fun, in fact its more fun because you can get away with more.

What you experienced is a problem not with the game, but a problem with general high-performance cars and racing cars. The faster and more twitchy the cars get, the bigger the consequences are when there is contact. When it gets to F1 levels you avoid contact at all costs.

If you're trying to suggest I was being too cautious with my racing room, this is not the case, at least not in the sense of "you're too used to other games". It was simply how I stated, this wasn't an issue of me giving too much racing room, it was just I couldn't turn in without making us both spin out, and this does happen in FC and particularly at this corner.

My most intense racing in GT5P was 550PP Suzuka, back in the "old days". I found it pretty much impossible to go side-by-side into any corner (Dunlop, Degner, the approach to the hairpin & the approach to Spoon) because the outside car would always end up getting pushed into the sand if there was any contact. This means the majority of the passing is by drafting on the straights - which isn't quite as "exciting"! I haven't raced much GT5P recently - perhaps they've adjusted the punting effect in a recent update?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Host Killer and PiotrB I need your race result ASAP. Send it to me by PM or post here, please.

 

[Ardius]

If they fail to complete their race, will the lucky losers be increased from 2 to 3 or 4?

 

[PiotrB]

I was a bit busy at the begining of this week so I don't have much time to race. I thought that Host_Killer will send me details when we race bacause he is first in pairings so he should host a room. I was waiting till last saturday when I thought that it will be better to send Host_Killer a friend request with a few questions. I was checking my PSN account several times in saturday and in sunday but Host_Killer don't replyed.

Today I received a message from Host_Killer that he was unable to race. So that means that I'm automaticaly won. It's a shame that I won in that style but let's hope that won't happen again.

Sorry for a delay.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ok, at least I have a reply. You know, your race result wasn't very important because last night I checked the leaderboards and you are in second position (behind Zedux, that got a very impressive 1:35 ), ENERGIYA in sixth and host_killer in 16th, with no one else in between. So, either way, one of you would be winner and the other one of the two lucky (fastest) losers. But I needed to know what happened, because if any of you withdrew from the event (like it happened with my opponent GTP_Graffen) I would have to pick the next fastest loser (Ardius) for a lucky loser slot.

I guess that's not the case, I will declare you winner, and host-killer gets in Round 3 to the second lucky (because fastest) loser slot.

I'll update the first post and will consider Round Two as finished. Hope those of you that did it had fun racing this combo!

 

[Ardius]

Eh, thats kind of lame, I turn up and lose whereas someone else doesn't turn up at all but still carries on into round 3 because he had a faster lap.
I wouldn't have made it into round 3 anyway and I'm not bothered but its a bit off that someone doesn't even have to race to get into the next round.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ardius I pondered this also, and didn't come to a decision lightly. Unlike GTP_Graffen, that specifically wrote to me that he withdrew from the event, what I read from PiotrB's post doesn't allow me to reach such conclusion about Host_Killer. And, by having a time posted on the leaderboard, I can only presume he remained interested in this event. I guess we are all leaving our racing too close to the deadline and doing so we can get situations like this.

Host_killer became - under these circumstances - a round two "loser" by default (he didn't refuse to race, so I can't say he got a DQ), so, considering the "loser" status, I could only compare laptimes.

I agree this should maybe be regulated in a different way, and experience in organizing these events is something I completely lack. If I give myself the trouble of organizing any future event, I will probably call on very strict rules (with the risk that no one complies and I have to DQ most players).

Concerning:
a) deadline to establish contact for scheduling a race;
b) deadline for replying;
c) deadline for the race to take place;
and
d) deadline to submit the race result (the only I have set in this event and, as you know, I had to allow late submissions/reports in both Rounds run so far).

So, I am really sorry for this, but I had to make a decision with the data I had. It could go the other way, but without hearing host-killer's own account of what happened, I decided to consider him a round two loser by default, therefore with a valid time on the leaderboards to be considered.

 

[Ardius]

Oh, I don't mind, its just I just realised a rather large flaw in this rule as someone could just put in fast laps in their own time and never turn up to an event and make it to the final rounds, its not really a fair test of racing skill nor is it fair to those who did manage to make it to the races (not saying Host_killer did this on purpose or doesn't have good reasons, I'm sure he does).

I don't think it requires stricter rules but next time maybe allow the losers to partake in a seperate time trial or something that is only revealed to them when they have run their race or something like that.

By the way, were you doing this by lap records or time trials?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Lap records, meaning, in race condition, not alone on the track or with infinite laps to get the "dream one". I thought it would be more fair.

I think all this "lucky loser" ruling, inspite being a "corrective" to the eventual injustices that the random pairing could provide (and allowing for a round with 8 players, therefore establishing clear 1/4 finals, semis and final), made for some injustice on its own. In my case that is very clear (and I speak of me because I don't feel entitled to speak of anyone else). I am in Round 3 with one race lost (in Round 1) and one race not made (in Round 2). I guess you deserved it more, at least you did win one race (I don't have that hope, considering who I am up against this round).

But I had to apply my own rules to myself, so here I am, not feeling that well about it.

Definitely, all this deserves a bit more thought. It will be done in the future, I have no doubt

 

[Ardius]

Well, you do realise the lap records are taken from offline as well as online? Meaning they could run a race offline with the AI to run faster times. They also of course could have run this combination earlier online or just practiced a lot with others during the week.

Perhaps you could change it next time to a system where you ask for the laptime they record in the actual race, just asking both drivers to write down both times (so that there is some clarification). This way people can't get through if they didn't race at all.

 

[Peace_Zedux]

Lap records, meaning, in race condition, not alone on the track or with infinite laps to get the "dream one". I thought it would be more fair.

I think all this "lucky loser" ruling, inspite being a "corrective" to the eventual injustices that the random pairing could provide (and allowing for a round with 8 players, therefore establishing clear 1/4 finals, semis and final), made for some injustice on its own. In my case that is very clear (and I speak of me because I don't feel entitled to speak of anyone else). I am in Round 3 with one race lost (in Round 1) and one race not made (in Round 2). I guess you deserved it more, at least you did win one race (I don't have that hope, considering who I am up against this round).

But I had to apply my own rules to myself, so here I am, not feeling that well about it.

Definitely, all this deserves a bit more thought. It will be done in the future, I have no doubt

I think the rules applied by Mário are very simple and easy to understand and we have to give him lots of credit for organizing this championship. I understand you point Ardius and here is my cent...

If the person can't race for whatever reason he gets disqualified and the lucky looser will be chosen *only from the racers who actually raced and lost their races. i.e. The fastest lap from these players who raced and lost will decide the lucky looser and the guys who didn't race at all were automatically out of the tournament. So no confusion and just a very small change to a very small paragraph!

 

[Hun200kmh]

Thx for the kind words Felipe

The thing is, I can't discard entirely the "whatever reason" that made someone not race. Take what happened in round one as an example. Deadline (sunday night) was reached and I didn't have news from two pairings (you and Lofasz, RS and Hereward). It happens that neither pair did the Round One Race.

I solved it without trouble because:

In your pair, I got PMs both from you and Lofasz. You saying that you guys were connecting to PSN at different times and inspite your efforts you never did the race. Lofasz saying more or less the same thing but also asking that the victory should be given to you. He solved my problem. And because he didn't have a fast lap in the leaderboards, the question of him getting a lucky loser slot for Round Two didn't arise.

RS and Hereward didn't reply until monday night, so I had no option but to DQ both of them, in order to sort the pairings and start Round Two. So I picked a 3rd lucky loser (Biggles/SimcoeAce) to have a pair number of drivers.

So, as you see, I can't set a rule that states that any driver that doesn't race for "whatever reason" is autoimatically DQed from the event. If that was the case, you qould get DQ in Round One (unless, maybe, if you provided me evidence that you and Lofasz scheduled a race day/time and inspite you being ready, Lofasz didn't show up).

In this Piotr vs. Host_Killer issue, again I don't have absolute certainty that the lack of a race was Host_killer's fault . As I see it, it happened something very siimilar to what happened between you and Lofasz, their race was never scheduled and it wasn't - again - the case of someone not showing up at a pre-determined time. So, I didn't DQ him from the event, and considered his leaderboard laptime valid for a lucky loser slot.

Now, about the best way to determine "lucky losers", this is what I wrote in the Event thread, even before it started:

First, I set that the lucky losers would be found in a specific time trial, to be run between the end of Rounds One and Two (sunday night) and the following tuesday. I wrote that in the opening post, but when, later, I changed this I edited that post.

Second, I thought about two options, and asked for feedback from you guys. Didn't get it. here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3344594&postcount=40

Third, I made a decision. Here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3345529&postcount=42

Anyway, as I already wrote, in future events all this needs some thinking again. Hope you guys provide some feedback about it BEFORE the event starts, and not only when it's already running and odd situations happen.

 

[Peace_Zedux]

Thx for the kind words Felipe
Anyway, as I already wrote, in future events all this needs some thinking again. Hope you guys provide some feedback about it BEFORE the event starts, and not only when it's already running and odd situations happen.

👍


plus the fact what you said before this also makes complete sense!