Thread for discussing a new point system

Now, if we want to solve this issue (thanks Jos for reporting an actual example of this), I prepared an excel file with 6 different proposals, that would surely go in the way I described in my post in the other thread, and will at the same time solve a bit the DNFs getting too many points without completing a race.

Now, I briefly describe my 6 proposals that you can check on the excel file. They're all based on a 6 races championship. With any of these proposals, the DNFs drivers will be rewarded with less points than the actual SRO scoring system, and the victory will be always rewarded more than SRO actual scoring system. Then there will be a couple of proposals to keep the field a little bit closer for mid champ positions. The column that really matters and that on which you should focus is that "POINTS % TO THE LEADER". Alongside each proposal I have proposed some hypotheses of countings for a champ battle.

I'm not a native English speaker, so I hope you'll forgive me if you don't understand something. In that case just ask, and I'll try to be more clear

PROPOSAL 1: ACTUAL F1 SCORING SYSTEM (This system would be a bit too unbalanced towards the leader for shorter champ than actual F1)
I would actually discard this in reality, cause it works well for a championship with more races like real F1, but not for a 6 race champ. However, if people like it... why not.

PROPOSAL 2: MODIFIED F1 SCORING SYSTEM (position from 2 to 9 would take 2 points more than actual F1. 10 pos only 1 point more)
If you want that only top 10 scores points, this would actually work a bit better than proposal 1 for a shorter amount of champ races.

PROPOSAL 3: ACTUAL MOTOGP SCORING SYSTEM (more balanced than the F1 scoring system for use in shorter champs)
I retain this a good scoring system for an SRO champ. It will reward a largest number of drivers, but has the advantage to keep competition a bit more close then the first 2 proposals.

PROPOSAL 4: MODIFIED MOTO GP SCORING SYSTEM (1 point more for 2nd-3rd-4th-5th pos. = more balanced for podium champ positions)
This is a bit more odd by my side, cause you will have a couple of situations in which: 1) a driver that win 5 races + 1 no joined, would lose the championship against a 6 time finisher in 2nd position. I retain this less fair than what would happen with the actual MotoGP scoring system. Evenmore, a driver that wins 4 races + 2 no joined races, would be beaten by a driver that will collect 5 2nd places + 1 no joined race. Better check the excel sheet I guess

PROPOSAL 5: 20 DRIVERS WILL GET POINTS
With this proposal, in case of larger grid, almost every driver would score at least one point, like SRO actual scoring system. Howerver, the highest positions would be rewarded more and the mid-back positions would be rewarded with less points than SRO scorings. We could think even on enlarging the range to include 25 drivers that will get point. That's not really a matter.

PROPOSAL 6: 20 DRIVERS GET POINTS MODIFIED (1 point less for 2nd position + Position from 4 to 14 will obtain more points than proposal 5 = more balanced for mid pack position)
As said in the description, that would render the fight for mid pack positions a bit more balanced. There is just a slight difference of possible combinations of events for the fight for championship, if compared to the previous proposal.

That said, you can download the excel by the following link =>

Enjoy the reading

 

Thank you for your efforts on creating this Matteo This is pretty much every option covered.

 

Modified Moto GP Points with Points paying down to 15th or 20th seems like a really good way to go, IMO.

Really great job, Matteo, genuinely fantastic work. I'd have no complaints about any one of those systems being implemented, genuinely. There's a bunch of different options represented which cover a whole bunch of different scenarios, more points for/emphasis on winning, less focus on winning, equal distribution, laddered distribution all represented. All great stuff!

 

Great work Matteo. Do you mean "Proposal 3" instead of "Proposal 2" in the text included in cells R16 and R19?

 

You are right Jos. That was a typing mistake. Thanks for let me notice it. I just corrected it and uploaded the correct version again.

 

Will that end up with wars at the end of races with accusations of wrecking others to manipulate points to gain advantage over another who was crashed into wrecking drivers points in the top ten of the series. How will you deal with that?

 

I certainly hope nobody here will deliberately crash/wreck others for points..

 

Easy - if you have people crashing to fix points you evict them from SRO Competitions in the future and if there are empty accusations you ignore them and/or tell the accusor they're wrong and they should shut up. Honestly, with the people racing here I seriously don't see that being a problem. Not that it isn't good to think of all possibilities, but that seems like a long shot.

 

Sorry @Doug Dezan, but I' not getting your words probably. Can you explain it with an actual example please?

If I get something, this is a situation that should be dealt with penalty system, if someone keep an unsportmanlike behaviour. I don't get how your objection would have something to do with a scoring system.
If someone is an axxhole, and do a crash on purpose on his direct "enemy", that is an unsportmanlike behaviour. That driver should be DQ by the event. In which situation your actual scoring system would work better than my proposal? I'm just curious to understand your point.

Now, we should remain focused on facts I guess, not on unsportmanlike behaviour, that is something that MUST be deal with rules and penalties.

1) It is a fact that your actual scoring system is too rewarding for drivers that simply show up at any events and too penalizing for a regulard driver that miss only 1 race on 6. This is a fact, not an hypotesis.

2) My proposals try to solve the issue of regular drivers that would be too much penalized by missing only 1 event on 6. Evenmore, like it should be, it will reward more a driver that win a race and give less points to DNFs, that is a good and fair thing when talking about motorsport or simracing.

Now, if you want to answer my question, please do: you consider fair that in my last event I managed to complete only 3 laps on 41 and I got 48% of the points of the leader?
To be honest, it is your actual system that lends itself to make some more calculations for champ position in the end. Do you agree with me?

 

Penalty system for Penalties: Points system for points. Seems to makes sense.

If people are crashing into people to fix races they're going to be getting DQ'd anyway so. Yeah.

 

Yes but what if driver "A" who is 2cd place and need to finish in 3rd at least because Driver "B" is running 5th and needs to pass Driver "C" to stay in 1st place in the series. But Driver "D" a backdoor driver is having problems with tires and crashes driver "B" out of the race. Driver "B" finishes the race with DNF, you now apply a DNF Penalty to his score and even though he did do the race.
The amount of points Driver "B" get now will disallow him a Driver's Championship. I hope you have a explanation for why giving points to dedicated drivers who driver "B" also is a dedicated person had a mishap not his fault and tried to finish race. Who is rigging the system for them selves I suppose he will wonder. Result is a loss of a good member.

 

Huh? If they DNF then so be it. Racing isn't fair a lot of the time and handing out participation trophies and championships to people who simply turn up isn't the right way to go about it. I really don't get the argument you're trying to make. If someone crashes someone else out of a race they should get penalised or DQ'd.

 

1: Racing isn't a moral sport, it's completely amoral. IRL You have mechanical DNF's that aren't your fault, and in both Sim Leagues and real life racing you can get crashed into with it not being your fault. That's the nature of the sport. Life isn't fair, tough shit.

2: If you have people rigging races, Ban them, it's not that complicated.

3: Somebody could fix the races now, even with the current points system by crashing a competitor out if the points gap was close enough; I fail to see how the points system changes the severity of this action.

4: If somebody leaves SRO because of a single bad experience or lost championship they're emotionally soft and you probably didn't want them racing with you anyway. And last I checked, SRO isn't struggling with driver counts? You lose one driver, so what? Remember when all the admins told me I could "Just go somewhere else" when I and my Teammate Maddie wanted the penalty reporting system adjusted? I remember that. I'm still here. This attitude is a little inconsistent with the one that's been showed to me. What happened to SRO's "Deal with it" attitude I've seen dished out to anybody who wants any sort of changes made?



Just as a closing note, when it comes to motorsport nobody is deserving or undeserving of any result. The fates don't care about disconnects or mechanical dnfs and people get caught up in things that aren't their fault all the time. That's the very nature of motorsport.

When it comes to intentional race-fixing, that would be the responsibility of the admin team to punish people for it if it starts happening. But knowing the people I've raced with at SRO up in the front field so far, I really, really think it's a stretch to plan for that eventuality. You'd just have to punish people who do that as it comes up. Also even with the current point system you'd be doing so. Changing the points doesn't really significantly change the severity of something as awful as intentionally crashing people Michael Schumacher style to seal championships. In 1995 when MSC did that to Daemon hill, they DQ'd Schumacher from the whole WDC standings, I can see that being an appropriate penalty here as well. Other than that, there's not much you can do.

 

It's an easy reply I guess. First of all, without stating how many points of advantage driver "B" had on driver "A" before the race and without hypothising a results flow from the previous 5 races of the champ, it's difficult to make any hypothesis. This is just an intricated situation in which you guess that a DNF driver should win the champ with a DNF. But it depends on too many factors related to the previous 5 races. The real factor that would give the champ victory would be difference in terms of points between driver A and driver B after 5 rounds. With my scorings proposals, the driver who obtained better placements in previous races would have a sensible advantage in terms of point before the last race.
An advantage that he deserved for his best performances during the previous races of the champ, and depending on how many drivers will get point, he could finish in a DNF position that assures him enough points to stay in front of his rival. I end up saying that a good scoring system for every champ, should take account on how many regular drivers are going to take part in that champ. Does not exist a scoring system good for all season

 

I do not want this DNF rules effecting events in my series. You can manipulate points is fine and John can manually edit points entries, but to rewrite the DNF system rule will effect all series in the result system.

PS, Not sure it might change the results in all the past series championships going years back.

 

Doug, now I'm a bit puzzled. I didn't made any proposal about changing your DNF system results. I just did some proposals based on scoring system in real life competition, but I never asked for a change to DNF rule. Instead I asked for a change of scaling, a change of weight attributed to the victory, and a change of the weight in the attribution of points. My top 10 system were based on what John vd Geest wrote in his first post, that I report to be more clear: "When you would like a DNF to reflect in the final standings, then you should submit a point system that only runs from 1st to 10th position for example.
If you DNF you will fall outside the points in normal circumstances. Problem solved.
(It would also be more exciting and rewarding to try and finish in the top 10 )"

I had attained to the other request that John reported in the first post: "I will not take into account calculation how much of the event has to be completed before you earn the right to points or a fraction of those points. The position where you were in the final standings will always reward you with points if you DNF'd in a point-finishing position."

In Zolder thread, Mark Hightree said that: "I'm not opposed to a change in the points system. Each admin has the option to setup their own points system for their series."

So, I did my proposals following all the suggestion reported by the admin. I'd have hoped for a better participation by the driver involved in the champ, but it's probably a less sensible matter for them. I'm quite tired to always repeat the same things. It's clear that if we want to change the system, we should have the chance to change the scaling of points attributed to the drivers. Otherwise you just should have staded that: "It's impossible to make any change to our scoring system"
Nobody of you did wrote something like this. If I knew that was impossible to change your scoring system, I wouldn't request to open a thread on this topic, and wasted my time with all these reasonings. Instead, I'd had open a thread titled: "Oh, what a great scoring system you have!"