| Pengarang |
Topik: GPRO Points System-Will it change? |
2971 balasan
|
|
|
This system will be ok:
15
12
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
|
|
|
|
Can you tell me why you think someone getting points just for racing, which is what you suggest, Shawn, would encourage Rookies to stay? I just don't see why it would make any difference if the points are being given regardless of how well they do (as points for everyone would).
There are also many other reasons against such a change, or any change.
You also mention how it us possible to play the game reasonably well and not score under the current system. That is nonsense, IMO. If you can't finish top 8 in Rookie then you are not doing "reasonably well" at all and rewarding these players for doing badly, by giving them points any way, does not change that and, if anything, falsely rewards them for doing badly.
|
|
|
|
I am surprised this discussion is still going on, in my opinion a change in this system won't change the game and will definetly not help rookies to stay.
The biggest problem is that some people start a game and want to be competitive from the start. From what i have learned playing GPRO is that it is a long term planning game. Instant succes will hit you back like a boomerang in later seasons.
Like everyone my aim was go to Elite when you start this game. i had countless discussions with Leandro that i wanted things to fast. In the end he said fine do it your way and learn the hard way which i did, i went to elite thinking i would be good there too, only to relegate with a major dissapointment.
Quote ( Mirsad Pazari @ August 31st 2012,08:21:51 ) This system will be ok:
15
12
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
i am not against that system but how will you stop the one big push guys with this?
|
|
|
|
|
Did someone suggest pints for everyone? Yes please...mine is a Guinness.
|
|
|
|
Jimmy :(
I was going to talk about why removing a tactic from the game is not good for a manager game, but it's all been covered before.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ August 31st 2012,09:13:56 ) Jimmy :(
I was going to talk about why removing a tactic from the game is not good for a manager game, but it's all been covered before.
???
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jimmy De Roy @ August 31st 2012,09:16:10 ) ??? Quote ( Jimmy De Roy @ August 31st 2012,08:59:46 ) how will you stop the one big push guys with this?
No point system should want to prevent the possibility of OBP. Removing that removes a tactic from the game (albeit a poor one) and that is not good for a management game, as previously discussed.
I shall not be going over that debate again :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ August 31st 2012,09:29:58 ) No point system should want to prevent the possibility of OBP. Removing that removes a tactic from the game (albeit a poor one) and that is not good for a management game, as previously discussed.
I shall not be going over that debate again :)
Ok i get it now, and i agree with you. Even if pushing just once is not good for finances and predicting for 1 win and 16 9th positions is impossible i guess :D
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shawn Sobey @ August 31st 2012,03:13:44 ) kely encourage retention of players in rookie and remove this most of the problem of half full rookie groups.
Half full rookie groups is a necessity.
New players joining the game need to be put into active leagues. That means there needs to be space for them in ongoing leagues - it would be a bizarre model to fill a new group with new players half way into a given season.
Thus the problem of half filled groups doesn't exist, or rather is by design.
The suggestion that points for everyone would result in better player retention is idle speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Sion recovered from his spasms. Thank god. X-)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sion Francis @ August 31st 2012,09:47:44 ) The suggestion that points for everyone would result in better player retention is idle speculation.
and to say it won't is just as big as speculation
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,10:41:43 ) Quote ( Sion Francis @ August 31st 2012,09:47:44 )
The suggestion that points for everyone would result in better player retention is idle speculation.
and to say it won't is just as big as speculation
The status quo is what we know. To state a change will improve retention is speculation and no one has given any reason why it would have a positive effect.
Are you advocating a change based on speculation? Or could you explain to me why giving all rookies points is more likely to have them stay when it makes no difference to their standing position so no difference to what they are actually achieving?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ August 31st 2012,11:02:51 ) all rookies points is more likely to have them stay when it makes no difference to their standing position so no difference to what they are actually achieving?
i have no effect on rookie groups but top 8 out of 40 is totally silly there is no series in the world where it only has 20% of people score but again i do not want to keep commenting on this thread
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,11:57:31 ) 8 out of 40 is totally silly
...
Quote ( Adrian Summers @ August 31st 2012,10:28:21 ) Sion recovered from his spasms.
They're starting again.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,11:57:31 ) i have no effect on rookie groups but top 8 out of 40 is totally silly there is no series in the world where it only has 20% of people score but again i do not want to keep commenting on this thread
The point you just responded to was about retention of new players so is specifically about Rookie groups!
The point you now raise is something altogether different and, as you not wanting to talk about it implies, has been covered to death from both angles in this thread and I'm sure no one has any great desire to go over it again.
People talking about improved new player retention if more scored points is something that has never, to my knowledge, been adequately explained beyond total speculation, but the counter argument (as to why it may make no difference to new player retention) has been made.
|
|
|
|
|
i just wanted to add to Sion that neither was proved as he was only talking 1 sided .
but this still stands
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,11:57:31 ) 8 out of 40 is totally silly there is no series in the world where it only has 20% of people score
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:11:00 )
but this still stands
That doesn't stand. It crawls meekly into the room, realises it's the most subjective of arguments posted in this highly subjective thread then promptly dies a painful death.
I might as well say that giving points to anyone who doesn't win is totally silly; or not giving points to everyone is totally silly. It'd be just as meaningful.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:11:00 )
i just wanted to add to Sion that neither was proved as he was only talking 1 sided .
And I wanted to point out that if it is to be used as reason for change then more than pure speculation is needed. The side you put forward isn't relevant at all as it is the reason for change that would need to have evidence, not the other way.
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:11:00 ) but this still stands
"Totally silly" and "no one else does it" aren't really compelling reasons for change to something that has worked perfectly well for the last 31+ seasons. But as you say, no point repeating old debates. Both sides of that point have been more than well covered.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sion Francis @ August 31st 2012,12:15:26 ) That doesn't stand. It crawls meekly into the room, realises it's the most subjective of arguments posted in this highly subjective thread then promptly dies a painful death.
I might as well say that giving points to anyone who doesn't win is totally silly; or not giving points to everyone is totally silly. It'd be just as meaningful.
i have actually talked about this topic on another online game and they all seem to agree with me about this topic but none of them like commenting on the forum here because of the pig headed nature of the forums ..........................um i wonder.
|
|
|
|
OK. I didn't want to do this but, Cale, could you summarise what benefit there would be in awarding points to more positions and why it is an improvement to the current system which I believe is nicely balanced, offers a good but achievable challenge of scoring immediately when promoting to a higher group and, in most cases at most levels, allows promotion and relegation to be decided on points?
If there is no great benefit then what is the point in change for the sake of change which will have an affect on all historic data? If there is a large benefit I have missed, then I'd consider supporting change but I just don't see one and, now I'm sufficiently experienced and, more so, with the experience affect change especially regarding Elite, I find the current system perfectly suitable, a challenge but perfectly achievable to score (which is, on the most part, what is required for group retention).
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:28:19 ) they all seem to agree with me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:28:19 ) pig headed nature of the forums ..........................um i wonder.
The argument "the points system is silly because no real life league does it like that" is a weak argument. That is a fact. Pointing that out is neither pig-headed or insulting - it is merely stating a fact - the argument should be attributed little to no weight.
If someone can't debate a point without taking it personally when someone disagrees with them then they're best served staying out of a debate.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ August 31st 2012,12:35:05 ) OK. I didn't want to do this but, Cale, could you summarise what benefit there would be in awarding points to more positions and why it is an improvement to the current system which I believe is nicely balanced, offers a good but achievable challenge of scoring immediately when promoting to a higher group and, in most cases at most levels, allows promotion and relegation to be decided on points?
tbh i have done that all before it would be on pages a fair way back to be honest and i will again at a reasonable time :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEEP THE SYSTEM AS IT IS :D
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Cale Murray @ August 31st 2012,12:42:37 ) tbh i have done that all before it would be on pages a fair way back to be honest and i will again at a reasonable time :)
Are you telling fibs, Cale? :) I’ve been through your posts and see no such summary.
I see reasons to eliminate OBP – which I believe to be wrong and is certainly not an agreed point – and because “no one else does it” which Sion and I have pointed out as not being a reason for change at all. You also mention added excitement, but have never explained why, from what I can see.
Quote ( Cale Murray @ June 18th 2012,11:57:21 ) i have long thought top 8 is silly with 40 cars and if we scored to 15th it would get rid of obp.
Call to get rid of OBP is wrong. There is no reason to remove a managerial strategy from a managerial game.
And again, the "it is silly" debate :(
Quote ( Cale Murray @ March 21st 2012,23:39:16 ) i still think this is a very good point even to 15th people won't keep playing if they can't score points maybe a system.
On what do you base this? You accept that it is pure speculation that newbie Rookies scoring points would help retention, so why do you believe that people who currently don't score at higher levels (so we assume relegate) are more likely to remain if they were to score a few points and relegate?
Why is there more interest in scoring low points (your revised system) and needing better finishes than just missing out on points and still needing better finishes?
Quote ( Cale Murray @ July 10th 2010,05:29:16 ) yeah i think if you have a top 15 there would even be more interest in the races in the higher levels .
as people could get points easier.
it wouldn,t make much difference to the higher end of the championship but it would make the battle to avoid relegation better as 1 point would not be enough.
Same as above. Why is battling for the low points in a revised system (when you won’t retain with very low points) any more exciting than battling for points in the current system (where you need less points to retain)?
|
|
|
|
Look the main argument for a new points systm is this.
''as seen in other sports, as more and more teams join, the less and less chance of scoring points there is, smaller teams were no longer scoring, never mind getting a lucky podium''
basically what this means is that by simply opening up two more scoring positions you will have 8-10 more managers scoring, it will enhance the competetivness of the game, and phycologically, give mangers more of a boost giving the motivation to stay and compete in gpro. we are not asking for a radical change in the game.
And for the couter argument of ''no one has given a good enough reason for a change'' or '' there is no proof of how this will improve the game''.
well all i have to say is that racing is about being competetive. and more points mean more competetive racing. And my proof is formula one. just look how competetive the mid-field is now compared how it used to be in thea early 2000's, and how the mid fielders can now challenge the higher guys in the new points system. A new points system is the loical way to go.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( John Lewis @ August 31st 2012,16:00:31 ) t will enhance the competetivness of the game
How?
Quote ( John Lewis @ August 31st 2012,16:00:31 ) and phycologically, give mangers more of a boost giving the motivation to stay and compete in gpro
Why?
Just because you say it does not make it true. Justify how you come to these conclusions. Feel free to reference the questions I put to Cale on a similar subject.
Quote ( John Lewis @ August 31st 2012,16:00:31 ) And my proof is formula one. just look how competetive the mid-field is now compared how it used to be in thea early 2000's, and how the mid fielders can now challenge the higher guys in the new points system.
So your aim is to make it easier for average managers to compete with good managers? But the good managers will surely still come on top. As has been well covered, a points system change will not really make a difference at the top of groups (even those arguing for a change admit that).
Where a point change could make a difference is deciding relegation, yet you make no reference to this at all. The more scorers, the more an OBP strategy becomes hardy to use to retain - but why is it a good thing to get rid of?
|
|
|
|
|
Can I have a sig that just says "What Kevin said"? :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ August 31st 2012,16:09:09 ) How?
more people scoring means more competetive racing. if you dont understand what that means that's your problem.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( John Lewis @ August 31st 2012,16:15:25 )
more people scoring means more competetive racing. if you dont understand what that means that's your problem.
...
Then I have a problem :-/
|
|
|
|
Quote ( John Lewis @ August 31st 2012,16:15:25 )
more people scoring means more competetive racing
It means more bankruptcy not more competitive racing.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Dansk
Pirate
