Re: N4 Banning = pay-for-play?

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John Hilsman) wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning is >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if you get >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay for play. > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for $50 >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane and stay >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - how strict >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? >

They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary banning is unfair and draconian.

yes, or make a sort of "wrecker-free" arear, if you got banned you cannot race in the 'wrecker free' but you can still join some other races for 30 days, if you do not wreck in these races for 30 days then you are ok to race everwhere afterwards, like woth the driving license, you get suspended but after a while you can drive again. "Type74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John > Hilsman) wrote: > > >Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning is > >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - > >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is > >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the > >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if you get > >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay for play. > > > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course > >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before > >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I > >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something > >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > > > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and > >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. > >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for $50 > >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane and stay > >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - how strict > >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned > >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. > >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the > >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone > >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? > > > > They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will > soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional > wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary > banning is unfair and draconian. >

How about you have to go to wrecker jail for 2 months? :) There's 1 Papy server, and other private servers where it's a free for all and you can wreck people as much as you want, or race, doesn't matter. Or, if your not a wrecker, you can go to wrecker jail after a frustrating day and wreck some people, lol. Maybe that would cut down on intentional wreckers too. Unless they're simply out there to piss others off. Thanks, Alex Jack W. Rocchio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZZsi7.2736$[email hidden]... > yes, or make a sort of "wrecker-free" arear, if you got banned you cannot > race in the 'wrecker free' but you can still join some other races for 30 > days, if you do not wreck in these races for 30 days then you are ok torace

Quoted text (41 lines)

> everwhere afterwards, like woth the driving license, you get suspended but > after a while you can drive again. > > > "Type74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John > > Hilsman) wrote: > > > > >Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning is > > >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - > > >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is > > >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the > > >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if you get > > >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay for play. > > > > > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course > > >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before > > >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I > > >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something > > >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > > > > > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and > > >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. > > >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for $50 > > >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane and stay > > >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - how strict > > >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned > > >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. > > >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the > > >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone > > >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? > > > > > > > They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will > > soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional > > wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary > > banning is unfair and draconian. > > > >

yes, seems a very good idea, anyway the point is that banning people completely is totally shit... "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fhti7.3784$[email hidden]... > How about you have to go to wrecker jail for 2 months? :) There's 1 Papy > server, and other private servers where it's a free for all and you can > wreck people as much as you want, or race, doesn't matter. Or, if your nota

Quoted text (9 lines)

> wrecker, you can go to wrecker jail after a frustrating day and wreck some > people, lol. Maybe that would cut down on intentional wreckers too. Unless > they're simply out there to piss others off. > > Thanks, > Alex > Jack W. Rocchio <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ZZsi7.2736$[email hidden]... > > yes, or make a sort of "wrecker-free" arear, if you got banned you

cannot > > race in the 'wrecker free' but you can still join some other races for30 > > days, if you do not wreck in these races for 30 days then you are ok to > race > > everwhere afterwards, like woth the driving license, you get suspendedbut

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > after a while you can drive again. > > > > > > "Type74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John > > > Hilsman) wrote: > > > > > > >Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning

is > > > >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - > > > >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is > > > >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the > > > >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if youget > > > >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay forplay.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course > > > >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before > > > >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I > > > >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something > > > >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > > > > > > > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and > > > >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. > > > >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for

$50 > > > >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane andstay > > > >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - howstrict

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned > > > >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. > > > >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the > > > >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone > > > >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? > > > > > > > > > > They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will > > > soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional > > > wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary > > > banning is unfair and draconian. > > > > > > > >

That kinda matches up with the Player Killing areas in some 'massive multiplayer rpg's' You can go to a certain arena and kill & maim to your hearts content. But try that in the main areas and the cops grab ya. A wreckers server keeps it clean for us...gives those who unitentionally caused wrecks a chance to get back on...and hopefully discourages the wreckers guild. The only drawback would again be if somebody in a weekly league had a bad pickup race and got forced off the Won servers, it could really end thier season. dave henrie "Alex Kihurani" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fhti7.3784$[email hidden]... > How about you have to go to wrecker jail for 2 months? :) There's 1 Papy > server, and other private servers where it's a free for all and you can > wreck people as much as you want, or race, doesn't matter. Or, if your nota

Quoted text (9 lines)

> wrecker, you can go to wrecker jail after a frustrating day and wreck some > people, lol. Maybe that would cut down on intentional wreckers too. Unless > they're simply out there to piss others off. > > Thanks, > Alex > Jack W. Rocchio <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ZZsi7.2736$[email hidden]... > > yes, or make a sort of "wrecker-free" arear, if you got banned you

cannot > > race in the 'wrecker free' but you can still join some other races for30 > > days, if you do not wreck in these races for 30 days then you are ok to > race > > everwhere afterwards, like woth the driving license, you get suspendedbut

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > after a while you can drive again. > > > > > > "Type74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John > > > Hilsman) wrote: > > > > > > >Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning

is > > > >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - > > > >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is > > > >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the > > > >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if youget > > > >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay forplay.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > > > > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course > > > >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before > > > >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I > > > >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something > > > >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > > > > > > > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and > > > >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. > > > >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for

$50 > > > >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane andstay > > > >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - howstrict

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned > > > >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. > > > >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the > > > >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone > > > >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? > > > > > > > > > > They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will > > > soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional > > > wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary > > > banning is unfair and draconian. > > > > > > > >

"John Hilsman" wrote ... > Is there anyone > who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? I doubt it very much, but I don't think that's the chief issue. Ask the question "Is there anyone out there who thinks a driver should be banned because one other driver gets pissed off at one incident?". We've had league races where one driver is severely ticked at another for ramming him twice, as shown on the server replay. On the replay from the "rammer" machine however, it's clear that it was warp as they never touched once. If Papy had this server replay on their server, I think they would conclude the wrecking was intentional, when it clearly wasn't. It seems to me that the way it's set up, the solution is more dangerous than the problem.

Doesnt it depend on if you are the "shit'ter or shit'tee"? :) "Jack W. Rocchio" wrote: | yes, seems a very good idea, anyway the point is that banning people | completely is totally shit... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

Oooooooo YummmmY!! "Gladiators" :) "Dave Henrie" wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

| That kinda matches up with the Player Killing areas in some 'massive | multiplayer rpg's' You can go to a certain arena and kill & maim to your | hearts content. But try that in the main areas and the cops grab ya. | A wreckers server keeps it clean for us...gives those who unitentionally | caused wrecks a chance to get back on...and hopefully discourages the | wreckers guild. | The only drawback would again be if somebody in a weekly league had a

bad | pickup race and got forced off the Won servers, it could really end thier | season. | dave henrie --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

Question Don and anyone else, Once being part of a GPL league I never saw any of this "Ok you hit me and I'm pissed so I'll wreck you attiude" before. Why does it seem to be *so* prevalent in Nascar? btw: I was in Eric Cote's league & he doesnt take any crap!! :) "Don Jennings" wrote: I doubt it very much, but I don't think that's the chief issue. Ask the question "Is there anyone out there who thinks a driver should be banned because one other driver gets pissed off at one incident?". We've had league races where one driver is severely ticked at another for ramming him twice, as shown on the server replay. On the replay from the "rammer" machine however, it's clear that it was warp as they never touched once. If Papy had this server replay on their server, I think they would conclude the wrecking was intentional, when it clearly wasn't. It seems to me that the way it's set up, the solution is more dangerous than the problem. "John Hilsman" wrote ... > Is there anyone > who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

"Thom j." wrote ... > Question Don and anyone else, Once being part of a GPL league I never > saw any of this "Ok you hit me and I'm pissed so I'll wreck you attiude" > before. Why does it seem to be *so* prevalent in Nascar? For the same reason it's more prevalent in real life-- there's significantly more contact during the course of normal racing with stock cars, so the chances of tempers flaring are much higher. In any case, I wasn't talking about someone saying "you hit me so I'll wreck you", I was talking about someone upset that they'd been nailed a couple times and maybe getting their revenge by turning someone in as an "intentional wrecker" when it wasn't the case. What it boils down to is that if I race on the Papy servers and screw up, I'm completely at the mercy of the other drivers to be reasonable about it. A fair amount of judgement is required to make this deal work the way it should. Knowing that there are some pretty unreasonable people around, if I were in a league that used the public servers I don't think I'd dare spend a lot of time on the Papy loops.

That's a great suggestion. Marc. "Jack W. Rocchio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZZsi7.2736$[email hidden]... > yes, or make a sort of "wrecker-free" arear, if you got banned you cannot > race in the 'wrecker free' but you can still join some other races for 30 > days, if you do not wreck in these races for 30 days then you are ok torace

Quoted text (41 lines)

> everwhere afterwards, like woth the driving license, you get suspended but > after a while you can drive again. > > > "Type74" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:07:17 GMT, [email hidden] (John > > Hilsman) wrote: > > > > >Consider your CD key your sim-racing 'license' (with WON). Banning is > > >like a 'clause' for bad driving - either deliberate or accidental - > > >that if you are a menace on the track to others, your license is > > >suspended/fined $50 - ie current game price. There's no cost for the > > >license, it's included in the game you bought. Either way, if you get > > >thrown off and have to repurchase the game it already IS pay for play. > > > > > >Described like this, I like this system. The big question of course > > >is enforcement: how many wrecks and under what circumstances before > > >the penalty is levied? Sooner or later we all make a mistake. I > > >really wish Papy (or someone working with them) could setup something > > >like that with a clearly defined set of rules and punishments. > > > > > >I haven't seen the replay discussed earlier, but as described (and > > >having raced against Justin_M69) it certainly sounds justified to me. > > >If the guy didn't know any better he just got a driving lesson for $50 > > >- when being overtaken by a much faster car, choose your lane and stay > > >in it. NASCAR requires many things or they will park you - how strict > > >should simracing on WON be? I don't think a driver will get banned > > >for one mistake, obviously the Papy guy considered it deliberate. > > >Perhaps there should be some system for appeal but so far the > > >unofficial jury in r.a.s. seems to agree with Papy. Is there anyone > > >who doesn't think a deliberate wrecker should be banned? > > > > > > > They should ban for 30 days and then reinstate their cd key. That will > > soon teach the wreckers to behave without causing unintentional > > wreckers to lose their priveleges permanently. Permanent arbitrary > > banning is unfair and draconian. > > > >

"Thom j." wrote: > > Question Don and anyone else, Once being part of a GPL league I never > saw any of this "Ok you hit me and I'm pissed so I'll wreck you attiude" > before. Why does it seem to be *so* prevalent in Nascar? btw: I was in > Eric Cote's league & he doesnt take any crap!! :) Two theories on this one. 1) GPL draws generally upon an older crowd to begin with, and 2) NASCAR tends to be more of an American crowd. We all know how we 'Murikans get when we're behind the wheel in any of our congested cities. Call this racing attitude "Sim-Road Rage". -- Fester

In article <%cvi7.10065$[email hidden]>, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: > The only drawback would again be if somebody in a weekly league had a bad >pickup race and got forced off the Won servers, it could really end thier >season. Like I said...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"> Two theories on this one. 1) GPL draws generally upon an older crowd to > begin with, and 2) NASCAR tends to be more of an American crowd. We all > know how we 'Murikans get when we're behind the wheel in any of our > congested cities. Call this racing attitude "Sim-Road Rage". > > Fester That would make for an INTERESTING survey. Perhaps when Papy is done banning folks, they could release the countries that most of the wreckers came from. Could be a runaway...;) dave henrie

hmmm? I just re-read this and sadly it doesnt say much for us 'Murikan Nascar-4ers does it? No wonder the Euro folks trash us.. Now this will really start an interesting discussion..lol :) "Dave Henrie" wrote: | That would make for an INTERESTING survey. Perhaps when Papy is done | banning folks, they could release the countries that most of the wreckers | came from. Could be a runaway...;) | dave henrie | | "> Two theories on this one. 1) GPL draws generally upon an older crowdto | > begin with, and 2) NASCAR tends to be more of an American crowd. We all | > know how we 'Murikans get when we're behind the wheel in any of our | > congested cities. Call this racing attitude "Sim-Road Rage". | > | > Fester --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.273 / Virus Database: 143 - Release Date: 8/16/2001

"John Hilsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Repurchasing the game should be enough threat to make > people take the rules seriously - this is a good thing IMHO. > I've got no problem with Papyrus perma-banning the really obnoxious > wreckers. Perhaps there should be a middle ground, some type of > suspension period like you mention. I can see one problem. Papyrus has money involved here. They could get financial gain by banning people. I am most definitely note accusing them of doing that, but it could be argued, and it will always leave room for doubt when the "police" are not without interest in the outcome themselves. Joakim

Frankly I don't think they would gain very much money even if, and this is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, everyone who got banned bought another copy of N4. I'm pretty sure they don't get paid on a per-copy basis. Money comes via a contract with Sierra/Havas/Vivendi. I would rather doubt if they got increases in cash allowances everytime a copy of N4 was purchased. (ps I'm not a business major and I have gone broke before so take ANY financial advice of mine with some very large grains of salt.) Their financial gain will come in continued sales of future Papyrus products which will largely depend upon keeping the online community happy. If the Papy Loop racing continued to be crapola....everyone would just migrate back to N3 and that would hamstring any future sales. dave henrie "Joakim Lauridsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9mfua5$21soo$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "John Hilsman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Repurchasing the game should be enough threat to make > > people take the rules seriously - this is a good thing IMHO. > > I've got no problem with Papyrus perma-banning the really obnoxious > > wreckers. Perhaps there should be a middle ground, some type of > > suspension period like you mention. > > I can see one problem. Papyrus has money involved here. They could get > financial gain by banning people. I am most definitely note accusing them

of > doing that, but it could be argued, and it will always leave room fordoubt > when the "police" are not without interest in the outcome themselves. > > Joakim > >

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: > Frankly I don't think they would gain very much money even if, and this > is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, everyone who got banned bought another copy of N4. I'm > pretty sure they don't get paid on a per-copy basis. Money comes via a > contract with Sierra/Havas/Vivendi. in general, developers _are_ payed royalties per unit. is Papy an in-house team? if so they might have a totally different scheme. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 silence is FOO!

Thats my lack of business training showing through...:) I guess it might come down to the (**WARNING CLINTONISM**) definition of units. Is each box sold a unit? or each thousand boxes? Papyrus was purchased by Sierra about the time N2 was released, so I was just assuming they are funded on a strict budget by Sierra, so a hit sales product doesn't make that much of an impact on Papy themselves... Even as off base as I may be..:) I still don't see the small # of people who most likely will be banned will make that much monetary difference to Papyrus...However, our muckracker Dodgefan has recently posted he already HAS purchased a second copy of N4 so I guess maybe there 'might' be a small addtional trickle of funds... dave henrie "Gunnar Horrigmo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > Frankly I don't think they would gain very much money even if, andthis > > is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, everyone who got banned bought another copy of N4.I'm

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > pretty sure they don't get paid on a per-copy basis. Money comes via a > > contract with Sierra/Havas/Vivendi. > > in general, developers _are_ payed royalties per unit. is Papy an > in-house team? if so they might have a totally different scheme. > > > > -- > Gunnar > #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 > silence is FOO!

"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> writes: > Thats my lack of business training showing through...:) > I guess it might come down to the (**WARNING CLINTONISM**) definition of > units. Is each box sold a unit? or each thousand boxes? I think this is pretty much the way it works in a traditional developer-publisher relationship: - the publisher ships a number of boxes to stores - the publisher waits for a (rather long while) for returns - the publisher then pays the developer a rudely small amount of cash per box that hasn't been returner. and if the developer got an advance, they won't get a dime till the advance is covered. if Sierra purchased Papy, I guess it'd be a fair assumption that they just write paychecks to Papy employees and hog all the rest of the dough for themselves. :) I haven't been in such a relationship myself, but this is what I understand from numerous articles on http://www.gamasutra.com and http://www.gamedev.net and a bunch of other places. -- Gunnar #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo�: 2 DE RECTIS NON TOLERANDUM EST