| Συγγραφέας |
Θέμα: Reforming promotion from Rookie |
36 απαντήσεις
|
|
|
In this season,I noticed some of the groups are way competitive than the rest,such as Rookie 61,69,126 and such.Only 4 promotion spots for those groups made them even harder to achieve promotion.For example,in Rookie-61 most of the top managers finished in negative because of how competitive it is.
Basically,some groups are harder than the others.That's why a formulation crossed in my mind.
Currently,in order to promote from Rookie,one has to complete three requirements:
1-Has to stay in positive balance
2-Finish in top 8,minimum (for achieving promotion through managers falling in negative balance,thus opening a slot for others)
3-Earn one of 4 promotion spots available,usually by finishing in top 4.
A manager can't promote by finishing 5th or lower unless managers ahead of them falls down to negative.But they may be more consistent in terms of finishing positions throughout races but just couldn't achieve higher finishes.
The formula I propose is this:
1-Has to stay in positive balance (obviously no change)
2-Instead of 4 automatic promotion slots,reduce it to 3 slots.In that way,169 positions (current group number,may change) is unfulfilled.
3-Managers finishing in top 8 but not got automatic promotion spots in their groups may qualify for those remaining 169 slots by finishing better than other managers in 'Rookie one-big race'.
Example: A group has 3 automatic slots;but in top 8,every manager finishes in top 169 of the "Rookie one-big race of managers that didn't promote directly".
Current format only allows 4 of them to promote,but the format I'm proposing allows all 8 of them to promote into Amateur.Because remaining 5 managers,which didn't promote automatically,were in top 169 of the "one-big race of managers which didn't promote automatically".
I made a spreadsheet,using one-big race data from every Rookie group.Feel free to see how this works : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uOvrKszr3Og4GyuZ53J2...
The managers you see in this spreadsheet didn't earn first three automatic promotion slots according to the proposed formula.Therefore,they had to be ranked through 'one-big race'.As you can see,7 managers in Rookie-126 could promote under my formula,compared to just 4 in current format.
This formula of promotion ensures managers with good pace and consistency,within Rookie level,will not be stuck in Rookie just because group is highly competitive than the others and still allows managers to promote automatically through group position.
This is a mixture of automatic and one-big race promotion for Rookie.I hope this formula can be coded into game because I really want managers to not feel stuck in a group,and be able to achieve their way into success.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:14:27 ) For example,in Rookie-61 most of the top managers finished in negative because of how competitive it is. I think they finished in negative because they didn't want to promote, and going negative was the only way to avoid promotion.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:14:27 ) one-big race
An observation here: OBR is seriously affected by manager's randoms, specially race ending ones. Consistency is not always a good measure to take as it gets seriously affected by chance.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Florencia Caro @ January 16th 2021,19:23:07 ) Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:14:27 )
one-big race
An observation here: OBR is seriously affected by manager's randoms, specially race ending ones. Consistency is not always a good measure to take as it gets seriously affected by chance.
I've got a random (start-crash) myself in a race this season,and affected my OBR rank.That's why in my proposal those top 3 spots are for automatic promotion.Managers can still DNF in 1 or 2 races and achieve promotion through top 3,I think.
Main objective,on paper,is increase promotion from managers with good consistency in order to create a more competitive Amateur environment.It can work differently,but it should encourage managers to stay in chase of promotion.
|
|
|
|
Instead of promoting people with say 7th /8th in standing with some 20-30 points it's better to open that spot to additional promotions and get that spot filled by manager with highest points not in a position to promote. For example in my group a guy named Felipe Vargas missed the promo despite performing good (74 points( due to insufficent spots while some groups couldn't even get 4 promotions despite top 8 relaxation.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ania Piekarska @ January 16th 2021,19:20:08 ) I think they finished in negative because they didn't want to promote, and going negative was the only way to avoid promotion.
I can sense that,but this is counter-intuitive of game's designed objective.Also fines are a thing for managers with 50+ points who stayed negative,further countering that objective.
My aim was to further incentivize managers which couldn't break into top 4 by giving them a way to promote.
|
|
|
|
While maybe I don't agree with you 100%, I do applaud you for your well thought out post and the work you put into making your point.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kshitij Sharma @ January 16th 2021,19:29:40 ) Instead of promoting people with say 7th /8th in standing with some 20-30 points it's better to open that spot to additional promotions and get that spot filled by manager with highest points not in a position to promote. For example in my group a guy named Felipe Vargas missed the promo despite performing good (74 points( due to insufficent spots while some groups couldn't even get 4 promotions despite top 8 relaxation.
He's in top 8 according to my spreadsheet.He could easily achieve promotion under my format instead of waiting for another year.But your idea is also good in short term (until 125 groups are filled in Amateur).
Amateur groups are currently underfilled.Maybe this OBR proposal can be used to give additional promotion spots,it is up top designers.
Edit : Furthermore,if 8th positioned manager in your group for example,can still be in that top 169,then they may well earned that promotion.Just to clarify.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:28:34 ) I've got a random (start-crash) myself in a race this season,and affected my OBR rank.That's why in my proposal those top 3 spots are for automatic promotion.Managers can still DNF in 1 or 2 races and achieve promotion through top 3,I think.
Main objective,on paper,is increase promotion from managers with good consistency in order to create a more competitive Amateur environment.It can work differently,but it should encourage managers to stay in chase of promotion.
As Flo said, OBR is not a good metric to use in that situation. Furthermore, promoting rookies are not the players who make Amateur more competitive. A better way of handling it would be additional promotions but I don't personally see a problem with it. Plus, if a player isn't in the top 4-5 positions at the end of the season in rookie, they are probably not ready for Amateur at all.
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:35:52 )
Amateur groups are currently underfilled.Maybe this OBR proposal can be used to give additional promotion spots,it is up top designers.
Amateur is underfilled on purpose, to make it more competitive and reduce the amount of inactive managers above Rookie.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Richard Robin Paukson @ January 16th 2021,19:37:51 ) As Flo said, OBR is not a good metric to use in that situation. Furthermore, promoting rookies are not the players who make Amateur more competitive. A better way of handling it would be additional promotions but I don't personally see a problem with it. Plus, if a player isn't in the top 4-5 positions at the end of the season in rookie, they are probably not ready for Amateur at all.
For example,I could be in Rookie - 61 with my pace and finish 6th-7th or 8th every race.But in my group,I achieved 10 wins and a championship.Same risks,same strategies but worse outcome compared to my group.Group competitiveness matters for Rookie managers.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:41:22 ) For example,I could be in Rookie - 61 with my pace and finish 6th-7th or 8th every race.But in my group,I achieved 10 wins and a championship.Same risks,same strategies but worse outcomes.Group competitiveness matters for Rookie managers.
But what if you get 3 race-ending randoms? Sure, you had pace all season but those 3 DNFs are going to ruin your OBR time.
It's impossible to make identical groups in this game. Some groups are harder, others are easier. And eventually promoting from a harder group will mean you are better prepared for Amateur.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Richard Robin Paukson @ January 16th 2021,19:44:39 ) But what if you get 3 race-ending randoms? Sure, you had pace all season but those 3 DNFs are going to ruin your OBR time.
It's impossible to make identical groups in this game. Some groups are harder, others are easier. And eventually promoting from a harder group will mean you are better prepared for Amateur.
That situation is little bit extreme in my opinion,but this point system already rewards consistency compared to other F1 points systems.
I could only beat my rival although I won 10 races,because he finished in the podium 15 times whlist I didn't score in 3 occasions.This 'out of points' finishes could be just DNF's for argument's sake.But getting good finishes still can allow managers in automatic promotion spots.
But in harder group one has to take more risks in strategy and thus wearing its components even further,allowing more costs and eliminating some chance of preparedness.It is better to promote with 40 mil then 10 mil.That's why proposed format can be good for managers in harder groups.
|
|
|
|
I think rookie managers can be organized into roughly 3 boxes:
1. Ascendants;
2. Eternal Rookies (of statistical elements collection);
3. Discovering and deciphering a game.
Achieving these goals is often ensured by a negative balance at the end of the year (2nd; 3rd).
The new solution does not support this - I think.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Tibor Szuromi @ January 16th 2021,19:53:56 ) I think rookie managers can be organized into roughly 3 boxes:
1. Ascendants;
2. Eternal Rookies (of statistical elements collection);
3. Discovering and deciphering a game.
Achieving these goals is often ensured by a negative balance at the end of the year (2nd; 3rd).
The new solution does not support this - I think.
For 2nd and 3rd options,they can still achieve their objective.Strategies for these objectives will not change in my opinion,they can still go negative or go with low risks to collect data and purposefully get out of top 169.
|
|
|
|
|
#15 Αναρτήθηκε 16 Ιαν 2021, 20:19:17 (τελευταία επεξεργασία 16 Ιαν 2021, 20:22:27 από Athol Kay)
|
Παράθεση
|
Rookie is always going to be a chaotic mess of some groups super strong and some super weak, and people game the system to stay in rookie as well, so any "fix" is just going to be worked around anyway.
The groups can all change wildly in strength from season to season as well, plus you can switch groups between seasons in rookie as well.
The real issue in rookie is that some players clearly have access to setup tools and some don't. If you have tools at the season start, and want to promote, it's not really an issue.
And bear in mind that any fix to rookie, needs to apply to the entire game. So you have to think about how a rules change will affect ama, pro, master and elite promotion AND relegations.
People hate randoms enough as it is, one cannot imagine the rage if a single random made your OBR so large you got demoted because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be an idea to perhaps try and make it impossible for people to keeping winning the same league in rookie (And just going into negative to do it again the following season) and taking up the main spots, money and sponsors of those trying to actually promote?
Maybe something like if you finish in a promotion spot twice in a row, you can't go into negative and you must promote. Off the top of my head. There are probably better ideas. I spent about 3 mins looking and found three examples already.
/gb/ManagerProfile.asp?IDM=161910
/gb/ManagerProfile.asp?IDM=8934
/gb/ManagerProfile.asp?IDM=876330
Would this go a small way into easing promotion congestion too?
|
|
|
|
It doesn't have to apply to any other league other than Rookie. I agree with the problem. My solution would be, if there is a manager with negative balance at Top 4, instead of promoting the 5th manager from the same league, you can use this list and promote the best team that didn't promote.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Athol Kay @ January 16th 2021,20:19:17 ) Rookie is always going to be a chaotic mess of some groups super strong and some super weak, and people game the system to stay in rookie as well, so any "fix" is just going to be worked around anyway.
The groups can all change wildly in strength from season to season as well, plus you can switch groups between seasons in rookie as well.
That's why in the spreadsheet some groups have 5-6 even 7 managers that can achieve promotion and some groups only has 3 managers that can make it.My goal is to alleviate some of this imbalance by making a way out from highly competitive groups into higher level.
Quote ( Athol Kay @ January 16th 2021,20:19:17 ) The real issue in rookie is that some players clearly have access to setup tools and some don't. If you have tools at the season start, and want to promote, it's not really an issue.
And bear in mind that any fix to rookie, needs to apply to the entire game. So you have to think about how a rules change will affect ama, pro, master and elite promotion AND relegations.
People hate randoms enough as it is, one cannot imagine the rage if a single random made your OBR so large you got demoted because of it.
I don't know how the game engine is coded,my aim was just modifying promotion system,only for Rookie.Other levels can stay as it is because those levels are fine.
My intention is just using OBR for managers who didn't achieve direct promotion to Amateur.I didn't mean,in any way,using this metric for relegation.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,19:28:34 ) I've got a random (start-crash) myself in a race this season,and affected my OBR rank.That's why in my proposal those top 3 spots are for automatic promotion.Managers can still DNF in 1 or 2 races and achieve promotion through top 3,I think.
Someone could still promote by finishing in the top 3 regardless of OBR, true. However For those wanting promotion outside the top 3, then someone who generally performed well and narrowly missed the top 3 but had a couple bad races (that may or may not be their fault) can be beaten to promo by someone who generally performed worse but avoided dropping out of any race. It's why points scored is a better metric of performance than OBR, and makes more sense to be used in the context of promotions.
The other problem with using OBR for deciding promotion is it might not be entirely clear to managers who will promote, especially for managers in rookie who are still learning the fundamentals of the game. This creates the situation where managers may not even be aware that they are going to promote and denies them the opportunity to prepare for being in amateur. This has also been true when we've had additional points-based promotions.
Having said that, there is clearly a difference between certain rookie groups as it stands. I'm not sure if there are currently balancing measures between rookie groups, but having a system that tries to evenly divide active managers between all rookie groups during the reset would at least make the experience in rookie a bit more uniform, not just for promotion but in terms of income and general gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 Αναρτήθηκε 16 Ιαν 2021, 22:45:07 (τελευταία επεξεργασία 16 Ιαν 2021, 22:45:28 από Athol Kay)
|
Παράθεση
|
Quote ( Çağrı Karaağaç @ January 16th 2021,20:39:03 )
That's why in the spreadsheet some groups have 5-6 even 7 managers that can achieve promotion and some groups only has 3 managers that can make it.My goal is to alleviate some of this imbalance by making a way out from highly competitive groups into higher level.
Can you provide examples of managers who had setups tools, who wanted to be able to promote, who ran a full season, and were unable to promote because their group was too competitive.
|
|
|
|
In Rookie, why not just promote managers who finish top 3 or have over 99 points, regardless of finances. If you're killing it and then killing yourself in the process, I don't really see why you should just be given a re-run of what you did last season. Promote those people to amateur and let them deal with the mess they created.
Or, make it even less attractive to go negative.
If you finish top 3 and go negative, you start the next rookie season with a balance of zero.
Though, that doesn't help the people who had prize money taken away from them. But could be counteracted by the end of season top 10 bonus money being taken away from those who end negative, and handed to the next person in the standings that did not.
Those two things could help. Would at least help the those genuinely trying to get themselves up the leagues.
=======================================================
While on the subject of game structure, I still think there's far too many people promotig to Pro from amateur groups. 4 per group is a very high number. Correct me if i'm wrong, I believe there's a dozen or so additional promotions on top of that as well! Cripes.
I know the problem exists of having to fill the spots being vacated by Pro managers relegating but the two do go hand in hand. If we had just 3 promoting from each amateur group instead, it'd mean relegating 267 managers instead of the current 375. In which case, the bottom 11 from all Pro groups could be relegated, the top 3 of all amateur groups (instead of 4) and then 8 additional promotions. I personally think that would be a better balance between these two tiers.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ January 16th 2021,22:56:15 ) If you finish top 3 and go negative, you start the next rookie season with a balance of zero.
about that there is a rules number 7.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, so tweak that last part :
Any manager who starts a season in Rookie will do so with a financial penalty worth $200,000 for every point they scored above 50 points in the previous season. However, if they finished inside the top 3 then they will begin their next season with a balance of zero.
A lot more clearer and less forgiving of people taking an extreme measure of avoiding promotion while in a top 3 spot.
|
|
|
|
It seems very counter productive to do so well yet purposely avoid promoting. I agree that a rule change such as this would hopefully negate this.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Steven Rose @ January 16th 2021,23:36:42 ) seems very counter productive to do so well yet purposely avoid promoting
It's because some people prefer racing in the top 3 or whatever in rookie in a continuous cycle, than face up to amateur where there's two or three times the number of managers on the track. However, I do think making that option as undesirable as possible would be the best step to take. I don't think the admins could go any further than forcing those who go negative from a top 3 spot a forced blank balance sheet for the next season. It would make a lot of people think more about it cos the current system of just taking a couple million off them for having over 50 points, doesn't really seem to have any kind of impact, neither in the decision making of the manager or in terms of the penalty that is incurred from doing so.
I also think the way top 10 bonus is handled should be done a bit differently though aswell - i.e, paying it out AFTER the relegation script is run, instead of before, and if necessary passing it down the standings so that anyone with an 'N' does not get it.
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest, the more Rookie seasons there are to any manager, the further you move down to Rookie 1. Gather the most experienced managers in Rookie 1. Let them battle it out among each other. By choice you could introduce Rookie experience and maybe put one or two levels or even a sliding scale of re-populating groups during a reset.
This is the basic idea:
- You want to go #1? Fine, get all points, earn most cash! Go negative ... ? OK, but you are one step closer to Rookie 1.. That's +1 for you.
- You wanna learn? Great, show us you learned loads, and maybe you will promote. Good Luck! You didn't make it? Then that'll be +1.
- You're ready to make it to AMA? Then reach for the top, earn some cash and prep for AMA. Tough luck? +1
- Starting your 3rd/4thseason in Rookie? You will be given an higher rank in EXP and you will mix in as a more experienced manager, +1
- Starting your 5th/6th season in Rookie? No problem, you will mix with the most experienced Rookie managers. Have fun! +1
* Figures and full description to word it in a rule can be discussed.
You can arrange this on the bases of several options;or #Rookie GPs /#Total GPs or #Pts gathered in Rookie or whatever.
> This equals out both knowledge and experience, and thus the chance of progress and gains of all managers throughout the season.
> In the end the most experienced Rookie will be playing each other, Still someone needs to promote, right!
> Prize money, point system, etc. can all be left as is.
In the end it's creating a sort of Rookie group of plebs (Rookie-1), with the 20/30/40 most experienced players, that play to win the Slow Motion Award!
I don't see any actual downside, or ... So I look at the bright side, there's even some achievements in this to make every body happy!
- Most experienced Rookie manager without promotion.
- Highest scoring Rookie manager without promotion.
- Fastest Rookie Promoter | Least number of laps needed to make it into AMA!
And many more options, no doubt ..
THE CATCH? Once a manager is in Rookie 1, still 4 will be promoted!
In the end all will go -30M, but if that's what you wanna start out with in AMA, by all means ;)
|
|
|
|
top 4 rookies in each group with a negative balance and relegated managers from higher divisions - should be put into group (1 to whatever) with maximum races in these groups to be 30 "super rookie groups" giving the new players a fair chance for promotion - and the more experienced players chance to feel how amateur feels like " also to stop the high school kids that like winning races against the kids in pre school"
|
|
|
|
The game is a manager, you need to be good, in several areas, you must take care of your resources, and at the same time be competitive, it is not just about running and going up to a group, it is no use getting into a group either whatever and not be competitive, so you need to understand the whole game to get higher and higher, in my group even two were negative because they raised their cars two levels higher than most, but they will not go up, that means they are competitive, no, if they went up to the amateur they would soon decline again. The formula for the current game in my opinion is ok.
|
|
|
|
But from R162 in promo list have only 3 players not 4 like it should be , and no extra promotions , so what’s gonna happen in this situation?
E: and from R81 only 1(!!!!) promoter ?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kristaps Zariņš @ January 17th 2021,04:14:15 ) But from R162 in promo list have only 3 players not 4 like it should be , and no extra promotions , so what’s gonna happen in this situation?
E: and from R81 only 1(!!!!) promoter ?
Look at the standings of R-162. Almost the entire group went negative to purposely stay in rookie, and the fourth manager who could have promoted finished 12th in the group.
In R-81, again almost the entire group went negative cash to stay in rookie. The positive cash managers finished 2nd, 9th, 11th and excluding 14th who did two races and never came back, 15th was positive.
Which suggests there's already a lower limit to getting promoted because other managers went negative. Which makes total sense because putting someone who came 15th in rookie into an ama group just seems cruel.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
