Re: GPLRank - Ring given too much emphasis?

On Sun 18 Jun 2000 07:24:00am, Andrew MacPherson wrote: <snip> >You're right about the Ring having a disproportionate effect and it >might be nice to have a separate screen with results minus the Ring. >But the "serious" score should include the Ring<snip> I agree. I have no wish whatever to see the Ring taken out entirely - I'd always want all 11 tracks in there (please don't add any of the extra ones as not everyone has them). What I was querying was whether one track should have such a massive effect - I think I could probably knock 10 seconds off my Ring time in one solid weekend, whereas to knock a *total* of 10 seconds off the other 10 tracks would take weeks. But I accept the arguments about how the Ring is worthy of its disproportinate effect, and on balance, I think GPLRank should probably be kept as it is. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Sun 18 Jun 2000 06:21:06am, Don Scurlock wrote: <snip> >Hey David. I came up with the scale that GPLRank uses. It's all it >what your trying to get a measure of. Schubi's is a great place to >see individual track expertise. Yes, but only for the very top drivers. If your best time at Zandvoort is a 1:31 (like me), there's no chance of getting on Schubi's site, so there's no motivation there. Which means that GPLRank occupies almost 100% of my efforts.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>This, on the other hand, is a gauge >of overall mastery. Don't think of it as one track having more >emphasis than another. Think of every kilometer of track being just >as important as every other kilometer of track. > Imagine all 11 tracks hooked end to end to make one long 48.484 >mile long track. You have to master this track. How can you then take >a 14 mile section, the Ring, out of the lap, and discount it?

I *never* suggested taking the Ring out entirely - that would be dreadful - just reducing its somewhat excessive influence. >The Ring is not only 29% of the lap, it's the most difficult 29%. It >doesn't matter how fast you are on the other 71%, if you're not just >as competent at the Ring, your lap time, and your GPLRank score, is >going to suffer, and you have not mastered gpl, overall. Yes, but the point I made was slightly different. If you're 1% off the pace at the Ring, you'll lose hugely more points than if you're 1% off the pace anywhere else, even though you're no worse - being 10 seconds off the record at the Ring is great; at Monza it's not. And I would say that far more people would be within, say, 5 seconds of the record at Monza than at the Ring. But I think, on balance, the current system is the best, and I've got no real problem with keeping it, especially now it's easier to filter the handicaps to see how you do in different chassis or on particular tracks. GPLRank has certainly given my motivation a big boost, speaking as someone for whom VROC is an impossibility because of a bad phone line. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

In article <4b535.52887$[email hidden]>, "Gene Bonin" <[email hidden]> writes: > >As a matter of fact, wouldn't it be great if someone could actually put all >the tracks together. What a lap that would be! > I have enough trouble with setups already, thank you. Don McCorkle

The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about this... Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more than being 5% slower at Monaco. You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's effect is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point of trying too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the ultimate test of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's share of the points. It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks equal weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same as shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. Anyone got any views on this? -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

David Buttery wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about this... > > Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time > differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at > the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more than > being 5% slower at Monaco. > > You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's effect > is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point of trying > too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the ultimate test > of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's share of the points. > > It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the > handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by > changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks equal > weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same as > shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. > > Anyone got any views on this?

I think you're right on this, Spa & The Ring are the lion's share of the handicap score. OTOH, it's equal insofar as everyone has the same hurdle to navigate. I'd like to adopt your viewpoint in this way: Total miles of the 11 courses/Your total time. The output could be an avg mph figure for all the circuits. Any fairer handicapping ideas out there, because this too may still be weighted too much towards the big tracks. -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +481.29 as of 6/18 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

Maybe have a feature in GPLrank that allows you to select which tracks you want to add into the handicap totals. For those who don't want to include the 'Ring, then they could uncheck it. Unfortunately for me, unchecking the 'ring would throw me even further down the ranks since that's the track I do best at in the GPLrank comparisons. Jim D. Uncle Fester wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (37 lines)

>David Buttery wrote: > >> The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about this... >> >> Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time >> differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at >> the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more than >> being 5% slower at Monaco. >> >> You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's effect >> is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point of trying >> too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the ultimate test >> of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's share of the points. >> >> It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the >> handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by >> changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks equal >> weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same as >> shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. >> >> Anyone got any views on this? > >I think you're right on this, Spa & The Ring are the lion's share of the >handicap score. OTOH, it's equal insofar as everyone has the same >hurdle to navigate. I'd like to adopt your viewpoint in this way: >Total miles of the 11 courses/Your total time. The output could be an >avg mph figure for all the circuits. Any fairer handicapping ideas out >there, because this too may still be weighted too much towards the big >tracks. > >-- >Chuck Kandler >GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 >GPL F3 Handicap of +481.29 as of 6/18 >K&S Racing >http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 >

[email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about >this... > >Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time >differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at >the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more >than being 5% slower at Monaco. > >You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's >effect is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point >of trying too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the >ultimate test of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's >share of the points. > >It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the >handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by >changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks >equal weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same >as shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. > >Anyone got any views on this?

Hey David. I came up with the scale that GPLRank uses. It's all it what your trying to get a measure of. Schubi's is a great place to see individual track expertise. This, on the other hand, is a gauge of overall mastery. Don't think of it as one track having more emphasis than another. Think of every kilometer of track being just as important as every other kilometer of track. Imagine all 11 tracks hooked end to end to make one long 48.484 mile long track. You have to master this track. How can you then take a 14 mile section, the Ring, out of the lap, and discount it? The Ring is not only 29% of the lap, it's the most difficult 29%. It doesn't matter how fast you are on the other 71%, if you're not just as competent at the Ring, your lap time, and your GPLRank score, is going to suffer, and you have not mastered gpl, overall. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

> or you can say that the Ring is the ultimate test of GPL driving, > and as such should have the lion's share of the points. You're right about the Ring having a disproportionate effect and it might be nice to have a separate screen with results minus the Ring. But the "serious" score should include the Ring because... well, because I used to really *hate* it! I couldn't see why anyone would want to waste hours learning it. Then I got sick of seeing people I respect say how satisfying it was. Sat down one day and after a couple of hours was lapping without too many stupid mistakes. From there on it's always been the track I return to when I need a serious challenge and an even more serious buzz from racing. GPLR's best feature is it gives reluctant drivers the best excuse ever to put in the practice time and discover why many of us would rather race a full field at the Ring instead of Monza any day... a full field at Monza's more fun than two drivers at the Ring though, especially when the other guy disappears into the landscape and you're on your own for the next half hour <g>. Andrew McP PS Another reason for leaving the Ring in is purely for KISS purposes. Leave one out and then someone'll want Mexico leaving out...and MosSport... and.... we'll end up with multiple GPLR versions and a less cohesive benchmark. Of course I might think different if I didn't have an 8:22 <vbg>.

> Imagine all 11 tracks hooked end to end to make one > long 48.484 mile long track. Now there's an idea! Where's Noonan when you need him? <g> Andrew McP

I wonder if one way of doing this is a type of ranking system where all tracks would have a roughly equal ranking is to look at a sequence of laps driven together, rather than a single hot lap for each circuit. For example you have to drive 10% of the entire race distance (rounded to the highest number of complete laps) as a single sitting. So you have 108 laps at the Glen for the race which equates to 11 laps, 68 race laps at Monza equates to 7 laps, 14 laps at the Ring equates to 2 laps and so on. Because of the huge variation in lap lengths this still isn't perfect but the differenence in distances you drive at one circuit compared to another should be dramatically reduced. The obvious problem is that the player.ini file cannot be used and people aren't going to want to consistently upload several MB of replays. However, if the likes of Martin Granberg can write utilities like Replay Analyser then surely somebody could write a utility for extracting lap times creating some kind of validation checksum and this could be uploaded. I've always felt that current hotlapping competitions favoured those drivers who are good at qualifying, while this would favour those good at racing/driving consistently. It would be interesting to see how various people performed on the different types of competition. -- Regards, Mark. -- "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. Remove no.junk.please when replying. -- "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David Buttery wrote: > > > The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about this... > > > > Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time > > differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at > > the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more than > > being 5% slower at Monaco. > > > > You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's effect > > is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point of trying > > too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the ultimate test > > of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's share of the points. > > > > It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the > > handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by > > changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks equal > > weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same as > > shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. > > > > Anyone got any views on this? > > I think you're right on this, Spa & The Ring are the lion's share of the > handicap score. OTOH, it's equal insofar as everyone has the same > hurdle to navigate. I'd like to adopt your viewpoint in this way: > Total miles of the 11 courses/Your total time. The output could be an > avg mph figure for all the circuits. Any fairer handicapping ideas out > there, because this too may still be weighted too much towards the big > tracks. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 > GPL F3 Handicap of +481.29 as of 6/18 > K&S Racing > http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 >

Hi Don, It's hard to argue with the GPLR handicap system when you look at it the way you described it. Make's sense to me and as someone else has mentioned it sure as hell gives a slowpoke like me the motivation to get out to the Ring and practice, even Monaco! As a matter of fact, wouldn't it be great if someone could actually put all the tracks together. What a lap that would be! Gene Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F56E3901dscurlock@news...

Quoted text (46 lines)

> [email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote in > <[email hidden]>: > > >The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about > >this... > > > >Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time > >differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmark at > >the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far more > >than being 5% slower at Monaco. > > > >You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring's > >effect is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point > >of trying too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the > >ultimate test of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's > >share of the points. > > > >It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the > >handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by > >changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracks > >equal weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same > >as shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. > > > >Anyone got any views on this? > > Hey David. I came up with the scale that GPLRank uses. It's all it > what your trying to get a measure of. Schubi's is a great place to > see individual track expertise. This, on the other hand, is a gauge > of overall mastery. Don't think of it as one track having more > emphasis than another. Think of every kilometer of track being just > as important as every other kilometer of track. > Imagine all 11 tracks hooked end to end to make one long 48.484 > mile long track. You have to master this track. How can you then take > a 14 mile section, the Ring, out of the lap, and discount it? The > Ring is not only 29% of the lap, it's the most difficult 29%. It > doesn't matter how fast you are on the other 71%, if you're not just > as competent at the Ring, your lap time, and your GPLRank score, is > going to suffer, and you have not mastered gpl, overall. > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -1.90 > > Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site > http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

[email hidden] (Mark Roberts) wrote in <Xq135.1623$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I wonder if one way of doing this is a type of ranking system where all >tracks would have a roughly equal ranking is to look at a sequence of laps >driven together, rather than a single hot lap for each circuit. For example >you have to drive 10% of the entire race distance (rounded to the highest >number of complete laps) as a single sitting. So you have 108 laps at the >Glen for the race which equates to 11 laps, 68 race laps at Monza equates to >7 laps, 14 laps at the Ring equates to 2 laps and so on. Because of the huge >variation in lap lengths this still isn't perfect but the differenence in >distances you drive at one circuit compared to another should be >dramatically reduced.

Why reinvent the wheel? You don't have to go any futher than the game itself for a ranking system that gives equal weight to all tracks, and rewards consistency as well as speed. It's called a "full season's championship". >I've always felt that current hotlapping competitions favoured those drivers >who are good at qualifying, while this would favour those good at >racing/driving consistently. It would be interesting to see how various >people performed on the different types of competition. Generally people that are fast hotlappers are successful racers. There's plenty of evidence for this. A lot of the people you see high up on Schubi's hotlap pages are the same people you see doing well in the leagues. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

There was a competion similar to this. http://members.xoom.com/gplmad/gplmad.htm It appears to have ended due to apathy? The idea was to drive an offline novice race at each track and in each chassis against the AI. I think it was good idea, but seemed to be labor intensive. With the success of GPLRank, perhaps some one would start it up again. Roger Mark Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Xq135.1623$[email hidden]... > I wonder if one way of doing this is a type of ranking system whereall > tracks would have a roughly equal ranking is to look at a sequence oflaps > driven together, rather than a single hot lap for each circuit. Forexample > you have to drive 10% of the entire race distance (rounded to thehighest > number of complete laps) as a single sitting. So you have 108 laps atthe > Glen for the race which equates to 11 laps, 68 race laps at Monzaequates to > 7 laps, 14 laps at the Ring equates to 2 laps and so on. Because ofthe huge > variation in lap lengths this still isn't perfect but the differenencein > distances you drive at one circuit compared to another should be > dramatically reduced. > > The obvious problem is that the player.ini file cannot be used andpeople > aren't going to want to consistently upload several MB of replays.However, > if the likes of Martin Granberg can write utilities like ReplayAnalyser > then surely somebody could write a utility for extracting lap timescreating > some kind of validation checksum and this could be uploaded. > > I've always felt that current hotlapping competitions favoured thosedrivers > who are good at qualifying, while this would favour those good at > racing/driving consistently. It would be interesting to see howvarious

Quoted text (16 lines)

> people performed on the different types of competition. > > -- > Regards, > Mark. > -- > "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a > psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. > Remove no.junk.please when replying. > -- > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > David Buttery wrote: > > > > > The question mark in the title is because I am undecided about

this... > > > > > > Because GPLRank's handicaps work on a straight "add up the time > > > differences in seconds" basis, being 5% slower than the benchmarkat > > > the Ring will make a massive difference to your handicap, far morethan > > > being 5% slower at Monaco. > > > > > > You can argue both ways here: either you think that the Ring'seffect > > > is so out of proportion to the rest that it negates the point oftrying > > > too hard elsewhere; or you can say that the Ring is the ultimatetest > > > of GPL driving, and as such should have the lion's share of thepoints. > > > > > > It seems to me that there are only two sensible ways of doing the > > > handicaps - as they are now, on a straight adding-up basis, or by > > > changing to a percentage score. The latter would give all tracksequal > > > weight, so shaving 6s off your Ring PB would be about the same as > > > shaving 1s off your Monza one, instead of six times as valuable. > > > > > > Anyone got any views on this? > > > > I think you're right on this, Spa & The Ring are the lion's share ofthe > > handicap score. OTOH, it's equal insofar as everyone has the same > > hurdle to navigate. I'd like to adopt your viewpoint in this way: > > Total miles of the 11 courses/Your total time. The output could bean > > avg mph figure for all the circuits. Any fairer handicapping ideasout > > there, because this too may still be weighted too much towards thebig

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > tracks. > > > > -- > > Chuck Kandler > > GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 > > GPL F3 Handicap of +481.29 as of 6/18 > > K&S Racing > > http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 > > > >

"Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F575B18Fdscurlock@news... > [email hidden] (Mark Roberts) wrote in > <Xq135.1623$[email hidden]>: > > >I wonder if one way of doing this is a type of ranking system where all > >tracks would have a roughly equal ranking is to look at a sequence oflaps > >driven together, rather than a single hot lap for each circuit. Forexample > >you have to drive 10% of the entire race distance (rounded to the highest > >number of complete laps) as a single sitting. So you have 108 laps at the > >Glen for the race which equates to 11 laps, 68 race laps at Monza equatesto > >7 laps, 14 laps at the Ring equates to 2 laps and so on. Because of thehuge > >variation in lap lengths this still isn't perfect but the differenence in > >distances you drive at one circuit compared to another should be > >dramatically reduced. > > Why reinvent the wheel? You don't have to go any futher than the gameitself > for a ranking system that gives equal weight to all tracks, and rewards > consistency as well as speed. It's called a "full season's championship". Ahh, but that only lets you see how well you compare to the AI, not the "legends" that you see driving the blistering laps elsewhere. Surely the current way of ranking on GPLRank is doing the same (reinventing the wheel) e.g. rather than races it is simply qualifying sessions. I'm not trying to say that one way is right or wrong, or even that one is better than the other. They are merely different ways of testing driving skill. FWIW I struggled to understand the current ranking concept... until I read the explanation on the FAQ. > >I've always felt that current hotlapping competitions favoured thosedrivers > >who are good at qualifying, while this would favour those good at > >racing/driving consistently. It would be interesting to see how various > >people performed on the different types of competition. > > Generally people that are fast hotlappers are successful racers. There'splenty > of evidence for this. A lot of the people you see high up on Schubi'shotlap > pages are the same people you see doing well in the leagues. I agree. I bet even with a different type of ranking system most people out there would _still_ blow my wheels off :-) However there will be differences. Some drivers race well, some qualify well and the best in the world do both brilliantly!

Quoted text (7 lines)

> -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -1.90 > > Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site > http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

-- Regards, Mark. -- "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. Remove no.junk.please when replying. --

I agree 100% Every track should be given equal emphasis and the only fair way to do this is with the percentage scheme. The Ring, while being a fantastic track, is just too long for those of us who cannot spend 5 hours a night learning it!!! I have limited time to play GPL and I see no sense in busting my balls at all the other tracks when one spin alone at the ring would negate one month of slogging away at ALL the other tracks put together!!! If I wanted a good GPLRank all I would do is race at the ring. There's no point even bothering with the other tracks till your time at the ring is great. This is not the point of the excercise, but unfortunately it is the reality of GPLRank as it is today. ...Colin

On Mon 19 Jun 2000 07:38:14am, Don Scurlock wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>[email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote in ><[email hidden]>: > >>I agree. I have no wish whatever to see the Ring taken out entirely >>- I'd always want all 11 tracks in there (please don't add any of >>the extra ones as not everyone has them). What I was querying was >>whether one track should have such a massive effect - I think I >>could probably knock 10 seconds off my Ring time in one solid >>weekend, whereas to knock a *total* of 10 seconds off the other 10 >>tracks would take weeks. >> >>But I accept the arguments about how the Ring is worthy of its >>disproportinate effect, and on balance, I think GPLRank should >>probably be kept as it is. > >The Ring does have a massive effect, because it's a massive track. >We could take the Ring, and chop it up into six "normal" tracks, with >six different names, that had aprox 1:30 laps times. Then no one >would complain about the Ring. And what effect would that have on >your GPLRank number? ZERO. Because the scale that GPLRank uses is >about how fast you can cover the SUM TOTAL distance of ALL the >tracks: 48.454 miles. You can look at it as one long track, or 20 >short ones. It would still be about how fast you could drive that >48.454 mile distance.

Yes. As I said above, I think on balance the current arrangement is the best one. I still have reservations about one track being worth (for most people) more than the other 10 put together - if you won those 10 and DNF'd at the Ring, you'd still be Champion - but they're overridden by the simplicity, clarity and excitement of the current method. Now, I'm getting close to the 50 (plus 50, that is!) handicap mark, so just another 2.5 seconds needed. Has to be the Ring... -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

[email hidden] (David Buttery) wrote in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>I agree. I have no wish whatever to see the Ring taken out entirely >- I'd always want all 11 tracks in there (please don't add any of >the extra ones as not everyone has them). What I was querying was >whether one track should have such a massive effect - I think I >could probably knock 10 seconds off my Ring time in one solid >weekend, whereas to knock a *total* of 10 seconds off the other 10 >tracks would take weeks. > >But I accept the arguments about how the Ring is worthy of its >disproportinate effect, and on balance, I think GPLRank should >probably be kept as it is.

The Ring does have a massive effect, because it's a massive track. We could take the Ring, and chop it up into six "normal" tracks, with six different names, that had aprox 1:30 laps times. Then no one would complain about the Ring. And what effect would that have on your GPLRank number? ZERO. Because the scale that GPLRank uses is about how fast you can cover the SUM TOTAL distance of ALL the tracks: 48.454 miles. You can look at it as one long track, or 20 short ones. It would still be about how fast you could drive that 48.454 mile distance. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

[email hidden] (Mark Roberts) wrote in <ehb35.2529$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >"Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> Why reinvent the wheel? You don't have to go any futher than the game >itself >> for a ranking system that gives equal weight to all tracks, and rewards >> consistency as well as speed. It's called a "full season's championship". >Ahh, but that only lets you see how well you compare to the AI, not the >"legends" that you see driving the blistering laps elsewhere. Surely the >current way of ranking on GPLRank is doing the same (reinventing the wheel) >e.g. rather than races it is simply qualifying sessions. I'm not trying to >say that one way is right or wrong, or even that one is better than the >other. They are merely different ways of testing driving skill.

GPLRank currently lets you compare yourself to aprox 500 other gpl drivers, many of them "legends". And these same people are high up on Schubi's hotlap page, and are high up in league racing standings. The same fast people will be at the top of any valid method of comparison. We could come up with a 100 different ways of quantifying a gpl drivers skill, and they could all be valid. The scale GPLRank uses is only one, and therefore can't be totally comprehensive. The best gauge by far, is performance in a season of league racing, as racing is what gpl is really about. FWIW I >struggled to understand the current ranking concept... until I read the >explanation on the FAQ. Sorry about that. I suppose it could be made clearer up front. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

And just remember that it's just as hard for everyone else to improve at the Ring, or Monza, as it is for you. It may appear disproportionate on the surface, but that diproportion is spread proportionately. In other words, it all comes out in the wash. I'll bet that if you ranked everyone at JUST the 'ring, and every track BUT the ring, thet rankings would look very similar. You don't think Huttu ranks higher than us just because of his 'ring time, do you?

"Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F58C1E4dscurlock@news... > [email hidden] (Mark Roberts) wrote in > > >Ahh, but that only lets you see how well you compare to the AI, not the > >"legends" that you see driving the blistering laps elsewhere. Surely the > >current way of ranking on GPLRank is doing the same (reinventing thewheel) > >e.g. rather than races it is simply qualifying sessions. I'm not tryingto > >say that one way is right or wrong, or even that one is better than the > >other. They are merely different ways of testing driving skill. > > GPLRank currently lets you compare yourself to aprox 500 other gpldrivers, > many of them "legends". And these same people are high up on Schubi'shotlap > page, and are high up in league racing standings. The same fast peoplewill be > at the top of any valid method of comparison. I agree with you. I was arguing from the wrong stand point. The cream will eventually rise to the top, but you would probably see larger variations between the slower guys. For example (and please don't laugh at my lap times, I haven't had the game long) my best at the Glen is 67.65s. I have not driven another lap within three tenths of that and therefore it isn't an accurate representation of my skill. However, I can turn 68.5s laps until the cows (or rabbits) come home and this is much more representative of my pace. > We could come up with a 100 different ways of quantifying a gpl driversskill, > and they could all be valid. The scale GPLRank uses is only one, andtherefore > can't be totally comprehensive. The best gauge by far, is performance in a > season of league racing, as racing is what gpl is really about. So we _are_ both arguing the same point then :-) > > FWIW I > >struggled to understand the current ranking concept... until I read the > >explanation on the FAQ. > > Sorry about that. I suppose it could be made clearer up front. Well, it was supposed to be a compliment. A bit like "very good explanation of something that I didn't get before". I'm guessing I really ought to shut up until I've created an account and had more of a look aound the site. Unfortunately I don't have the time to put in reasonable laps at all circuits and actually get myself a handicap :-( It probably is much more fun when you are actually competing! -- Regards, Mark. -- "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. Remove no.junk.please when replying. --

Kevin Gavitt wrote: > You don't think Huttu ranks higher than us just because of his 'ring time, > do you? Yeah, after Don Scurlock's explanation I think things are best left as they are. However, The Ring *does* account for almost half of Huttu's lead over Andreas Wilke! :-) -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

[email hidden] (Mark Roberts) wrote in <Int35.3550$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I agree with you. I was arguing from the wrong stand point. The cream will >eventually rise to the top, but you would probably see larger variations >between the slower guys. For example (and please don't laugh at my lap >times, I haven't had the game long) my best at the Glen is 67.65s. I have >not driven another lap within three tenths of that and therefore it isn't an >accurate representation of my skill. However, I can turn 68.5s laps until >the cows (or rabbits) come home and this is much more representative of my >pace.

It's typical of everybody Mark, more so early on. You get a PB, then you can't touch it for the longest time, then your matching it three times in a session, and so it goes. >So we _are_ both arguing the same point then :-) I knew you were in basic agreement with me, I just like to argue ;-) -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

Sorry, no new idea. But you can even top this. After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) Jens On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:28 +0100 (BST), [email hidden] (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >> Imagine all 11 tracks hooked end to end to make one >> long 48.484 mile long track. > >Now there's an idea! Where's Noonan when you need him? <g> > >Andrew McP

--------------------------------------------- [email hidden] Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ Racing simulation, esp. GPL Logitech Wingman FF optimization Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor Radio controlled airplanes

"Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F5891C16dscurlock@news... > It's typical of everybody Mark, more so early on. You get a PB, then youcan't > touch it for the longest time, then your matching it three times in asession, > and so it goes. I guess I'll just have to find more time to practice then... > I knew you were in basic agreement with me, I just like to argue ;-) So do I and I'm going to have the last word ;-) -- Regards, Mark. -- "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. Remove no.junk.please when replying. --

No, that's just sick! :-)

> After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) No, that's just sick! :-)

[email hidden] (JS) wrote in <[email hidden]>: >Sorry, no new idea. >But you can even top this. >After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) > >Jens Viper Racing had this option and it definitely added life to the game. I sure wouldn't want to see it in gpl though, as I haven't learned a fraction of the converted tracks, and the game already takes up to much of my time. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -1.90 Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

JS wrote: > After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) > The 'Ring in reverse?!?! That's not *even* funny. May a Lotus run over your toes! <g> -- Chuck Kandler GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 K&S Racing http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195

In article <8im556$6bq$[email hidden]>, Colin <[email hidden]> writes >I agree 100% >Every track should be given equal emphasis and the only fair way to do this >is with the percentage scheme. >The Ring, while being a fantastic track, is just too long for those of us >who cannot spend 5 hours a night learning it!!! 5 hours a night? Now I can understand your predicament. :) In all seriousness, I was down to 8:30 without having to give the ring more time than any of the other tracks. I used to only race Grand Prix length race seasons and so the Ring would get its turn along with all the rest, and no more. Admittedly, to improve beyond this I had to dedicate extra time specifically for the Ring, but I don't see it as any different say than the extra time I had to dedicate to get down from 1:19.5 to 1:19.0 at Kyalami, or under 1:26 at Monaco.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>I have limited time to play GPL and I see no sense in busting my balls at >all the other tracks when one spin alone at the ring would negate one month >of slogging away at ALL the other tracks put together!!! If I wanted a good >GPLRank all I would do is race at the ring. There's no point even bothering >with the other tracks till your time at the ring is great. This is not the >point of the excercise, but unfortunately it is the reality of GPLRank as it >is today. >...Colin > >

I really don't think you need to 'bust your balls' as such to improve, despite what you may think. Indeed the track seems a whole lot more daunting than it is in reality. Trust me, though this is not how I do it personally, but if you were to put in 3 laps, all damage off, 2 or 3 times a week, then you would start to get much, much better. -- Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington) No person's opinions can be said to be more correct than another's, because each is the sole judge of his or her own experience.

English - not my native language. Of course I meant: the whole 48 miles again, but the other way around - wrong direction - from the finish to the start - ... Reverse could be fun too ;-) Jens On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 06:37:14 GMT, [email hidden] (JS) wrote: >Sorry, no new idea. >But you can even top this. >After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) > >Jens > --------------------------------------------- [email hidden] Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ Racing simulation, esp. GPL Logitech Wingman FF optimization Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor Radio controlled airplanes

In article <Int35.3550$[email hidden]>, "Mark Roberts" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I agree with you. I was arguing from the wrong stand point. The cream will >eventually rise to the top, but you would probably see larger variations >between the slower guys. For example (and please don't laugh at my lap >times, I haven't had the game long) my best at the Glen is 67.65s. I have >not driven another lap within three tenths of that and therefore it isn't an >accurate representation of my skill. However, I can turn 68.5s laps until >the cows (or rabbits) come home and this is much more representative of my >pace.

*I* wouldn't laugh at your times, anyway. I've had the game for almost two years, and I'm only about .5 sec faster... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. 1:35.98 minutes-GPLRank:378 as of 6/18/00 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> JS wrote: > > > After 48 miles the same tracks again, but reverse :-) > > > > The 'Ring in reverse?!?! That's not *even* funny. May a Lotus run over > your toes! <g>

Imagine Flugplatz backwards. You'd certainly get some flight time there. You may even make it over the bridge if you get it right. Now there's a challenge..... Cheers Phil -- GPL Rank: +66.44 secs http://www.youpies.co.uk > > -- > Chuck Kandler > GPL F1 Handicap of +210.00 as of 6/15 > GPL F3 Handicap of +443.38 as of 6/19 > K&S Racing > http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/thepits/195 >

Throughout this thread, Don seems to have aired the most logical and sensible view: The 'Ring is just a big track, and a difficult one. I think those who have done well here should be rewarded in proportion to their efforts. Keep GPLRank the way it is! -- -Ace- Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote > > The Ring does have a massive effect, because it's a massive track. > We could take the Ring, and chop it up into six "normal" tracks, with > six different names, that had aprox 1:30 laps times. Then no one > would complain about the Ring. And what effect would that have on > your GPLRank number? ZERO. Because the scale that GPLRank uses is > about how fast you can cover the SUM TOTAL distance of ALL the > tracks: 48.454 miles. You can look at it as one long track, or 20 > short ones. It would still be about how fast you could drive that > 48.454 mile distance. > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -1.90 > > Come see how you rate, at the GPLRank site > http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

Don't worry guys GPLRank isn't changing any time soon. The great support RAS has giving it with it's current configuration has been better then anyone could ever have imagined so we have no intention of changing it. Thank you for you support, -- Jeff Murchison JR Screamers Racing League www.speakeasy.org/~jmurch/ "JS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Amen, brother. > > Jens > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:24:37 +0100, "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Throughout this thread, Don seems to have aired the most logical and > >sensible view: The 'Ring is just a big track, and a difficult one. I think > >those who have done well here should be rewarded in proportion to their > >efforts. Keep GPLRank the way it is! > > --------------------------------------------- > [email hidden] > Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address > > JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ > Racing simulation, esp. GPL > Logitech Wingman FF optimization > Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor > Radio controlled airplanes

Amen, brother. Jens On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:24:37 +0100, "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Throughout this thread, Don seems to have aired the most logical and >sensible view: The 'Ring is just a big track, and a difficult one. I think >those who have done well here should be rewarded in proportion to their >efforts. Keep GPLRank the way it is! --------------------------------------------- [email hidden] Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ Racing simulation, esp. GPL Logitech Wingman FF optimization Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor Radio controlled airplanes

Amen, brother. Jens >Throughout this thread, Don seems to have aired the most logical and >sensible view: The 'Ring is just a big track, and a difficult one. I think >those who have done well here should be rewarded in proportion to their >efforts. Keep GPLRank the way it is! --------------------------------------------- Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ Racing simulation, esp. GPL Logitech Wingman FF optimization Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor Radio controlled airplanes

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > *I* wouldn't laugh at your times, anyway. I've had the game for almosttwo > years, and I'm only about .5 sec faster... > > Eldred LOL. Don't say stuff like that. I might think I'm good and lose the motivation to practice! -- Regards, Mark. -- "Why do I get the feeling that someday I'll be describing this to a psychiatrist?" - Lisa Simpson. Remove no.junk.please when replying. --