Re: Community VOTE : TEC Lag out formula.

[Senna]

I think theres a hugely preconceived notion here that this would only benefit the elite. That has to be dispelled. It isn't a rule that benefits the pinnacle, it's a rule that benefits ALL.

[EVR Statistic]

I definitely approve of this going through as the past couple of races for my team have been plagued by lagouts and has really killed motivation to continue to continue on in the race. In terms of the technical side of it, it would foolproof the rule to have to send a screenshot or game clip of the notice of disconnection. I'd also like to voice my opinion on the argument of elitism, seems as I'm part of a team seen as small. I personally think that it is very hard to make everyone happy, big or small teams. In this case, the rule helps everyone and as I said before, keeps motivation going to continue.

[TPR Zermatt]

Big +1 to the above.

1) This rule does not differ between big, small, fast, slow, fat, thin, pink, blue or teams driving on eco-fuel. Everyone needs to get that into their head.

2) No one has told me why my earlier rule would not be appropriate so staff members take note.

3) This site has the opportunity to bring some big names in soon, so have a think.

[desertrainfrog]

There is literally not any point in making a lag out formula if you don't keep people in the hunt for the race position they were fighting for.

e.g. 15miles is WAY too much.

If we lagged out in a similar position to the F4H boys last race, even with this formula I would still retire. It's simply too harsh.

Too harsh? Seriously? Wow.

That formula is meant to keep you in the race after a lagout, so that you don't fall behind the rest of the pack with 100+ miles and can stay competitive. Not for saving your podium finish.

[TJSteel]

Anyway, two thirds of people have voted for a rule to be implemented. My proposed rule is:

Predicted mileage that stint (calculated by miles when lagged out vs time left in stint) - 5% of that distance.

As previously stated this still impacts teams pretty hard, but gives them the opportunity to keep racing around the people they were before.

Maintains participation, still punishes. If someone would like to tell me whats wrong with that i'd welcome the chance to explain further.

the issue with this is the fact you need to use time, which can't be seen in game, and this relies on data collection by the individual,

The rule I'm going for takes nothing but the lap which you lagged on and gives you that milage, plus 75% of the milage you could have driven extra based on your worst stint,

This 75% is the fairest number I've found so far based on the tests I've done so far. This may change though after I do more testing with it.

The reason it's not put as high as what your suggesting, 95% is that this could be abused by people lagging on purpose and still retaining a close gap to the front which is what we need to avoid,

A disconnect should knock you back in the race, but this rule is to reduce how harsh this knock back is, it's not there to give you your mileage for free.

[TPR Zermatt]

@Desertrainfrog - if the 70% or 80% formula is implemented then using Bathurst as an example. The leading team would have come last. If that's not falling behind the rest of the pack i'm, not sure what is.

@TJSteel - You can see time in the game. It's a time based race with a time-counter when we stop at 20minutes. Can you give me an example of your 75% with actual numbers please? Based off Bathurst's 185m stint?

My rule is based on predicted mileage so it wouldn't be beneficial to 'lag out on purpose' if they were on a bad stint. If you are on course for a bad stint, your on course for it and you still get docked miles. The TURN formula used (last place -1mile) did encourage 'on purpose lagging out'. Not saying yours will encourage, but I still feel it's way too harsh. But please do the calculation.

This rule should be to keep people racing, and anyone who lags out and loses 30 positions due to it won't keep racing. When was the last time you tried to gain back 30-50 miles in a race? Even 9/10 miles is tough to do.

[TPR Zermatt]

Couldn't edit my post and wanted to add that you guys are forgetting this is completely different from crashing out. It's no-ones fault and therefore the punishment should be minimal. Why should you get punished for disconnecting as it's not your fault.

Predicted mileage is the way forward.

[xebot360]

That's like saying, you get hit into a wall by someone else, get engine damage and it's not your fault so you should get miles added. It should punish the drivers that lag out but not to an extent where they're not 100% out of the race.

As for not benefiting the "elite" teams, it's just weird how it was brought up again after some of those teams lagged out, but when other teams did it, nothing was said but whatever. Had it in Daytona, massive uproar about it and now it's suddenly brought up again when the big teams lag out. That's what it's looking like for me tbh

[TPR Zermatt]

It's nothing like saying you get hit into a wall by someone else. Your vendetta against the 'elite' (whatever the hell that means) teams is hilarious. What you are suggesting is that if I were from a smaller team (even though the team I am in has 8 people) that you would listen to me? You need to get a check. I'm absolutely baffled the fact you keep going on about this 'elite' team business.

This should give you the opportunity to stay in the race close to where you were, you have already had the punishment of actually competing and enjoying racing taken away from you by external forces. You should be able to stay in the hunt near to where you were, it should incentivise teams to get back to the position they were in and if they have an insurmountable distance to do that, they will switch off and not compete.

[xebot360]

Nah. I just find it weird that it was brought up all of a sudden once they lagged out. I'm sorry but that's why some of the guys I know don't like racing here. Cause they feel the same as I do so you can have an argument with them too if you like. Like I said before, TORA will only grow if the smaller teams grow which by the sounds of things, you're completely against so don't start having a go at me mate. I respect what they've done but it's weird how it hasn't been brought up before until they started having issues.

It is. Imagine having to do a full lap of Bathurst with a broken engine. You'll lose roughly 10-20 laps so why shouldn't those teams get more distance added if it's through no fault of their own

[TPR Zermatt]

How do you envisage the smaller teams growing? In no way am I against the smaller team's growing but for the life of me I cannot connect the dots between a lag-out rule that helps EVERYONE and your smaller teams growing? What is stopping them growing organically like every other race team in history?

Topics get brought up when they get brought up you are reading into this far too much.

Do a full lap on Bathurst with broken engine damage will not lose you 10/20 laps - haha!! Doubftul considering I did most of a lap with 100% damage last round and lost about 5 minutes. 10 laps = 20+ mins, 20 laps = 40+ minutes. The difference is when you lag out you have no opportunity to race, if you get engine or car damage you can still carry on.

[WR Watcher]

If you have a broken engine, you most likely had an accident and it is up to a certain point your failure that you ruined the car. A lag out can't be compared to that cause it's just a connection issue.

[xebot360]

All I would want (for endurance races) is the VEC format, with possibly a qualifying round to see which teams go where (TEC ir the VEC format), then have a "wildcard" entry for Le Mans. Reason I left the CT team in the first place, was cause I just found it useless to be in tbh since I couldn't help out with decisions since only a few would listen (hope that's changed now).

We've had ideas to help the drivers find teams but they haven't been put into action so it should be the other way round by what's been said previously but again, that idea isn't gonna work clearly so, teams are forced to build away from TORA which isn't ideal, maybe in the long run but that's only if they cone back.

I did exaggerate with the time taken but my point still stands. It's not our fault if we get put into a wall by someone who's not aware so why shouldn't we get miles added. Yes it's not as bad as a connection issue but if it's not our fault, like the connection issue, then why don't we get miles added.

I am against it (as you can tell) but I don't get why lagging out gets you miles but being punted in to a wall/off the track and getting screwed by it doesn't

[xebot360]

and tbh Zermatt, I haven't saw you complain about it not being a rule on here until the guys up front lagged out

[TPR Zermatt]

I only joined the championship this round - although I did participate in the first round. I've been racing on a different site. Also, this thread debating this has only just gone up so.... that's why my contribution is now, and not in the past.

I'm pretty sure that system you suggested for qualifying is already in place? You can apply to race I think what you are proposing needs to come from both the teams and the individuals trying to find teams, get in contact with them and be pro-active. I think you have just had a bad expedience in the 'team' you joined. It's not TORA's role to create and bulk teams?

Lagging out is entirely out of your control. Getting crashed even if its not your fault is, unfortunately, part of racing. There are things in place (SI's, etc), like real racing, to punish the other party involved.

[xebot360]

Fair enough mate. I meant a qualifying round at the start of the season which would take place before the first round. Both series run the same builds, but different length races.
The crash thing I see your point now about it.

Regarding the team thing, we could just put up a driver recruitment thing, not in each separate series but somewhere else on the "main" page just so the majority of people can see it. The team is my own so I was talking from personal experience. My aim would be to help out the teams that need help recruiting, not so much us since most of our drivers will be back at the start of next year, but the teams who struggle to get drivers in, struggle to get teams in for events such as this etc. Yes you may say that teams like HCR, LMR etc did it their own way but tbh, you guys never had as much competition as we do now.

[xebot360]

It's enjoyable competing against those teams, it's just a lot harder to keep going throughout a whole year

[SVR Solar]

"Smaller Teams" that have Lagged out have obviously not had the Bottle to come out and say " What is the point in racing if we dont have something in place to keep us going" it takes 1 person to mention the Lagout Rule and the crowd follows, just because F4H Chrisupra or F4H Trash bought this up here, does not mean they are doing it for there own Beneficial Means, you guys who think this need to drill it into ya thick Skulls that some of the Fast Drivers are even against this rule, but i want what the Community wants, not what a Small Portion of people want who reckon they will never lag out, just so they can cheapskate there way into a podium position, FIGHT For the Position, winning a race due to a lag out does not feel like a proper win.

[xebot360]

It was in at Daytona though and people were against it. It's just all suspicious for me since so many were against it at Daytona but now some of the guys at the front of A lobby lagged out, it's suddenly ok. That's why I think me and a few others are questioning it. Plus, behind the scenes, it's mainly guys from those teams in the staff so why wouldn't it seem all a bit suspicious. You may say it's not but that's the idea some of us are getting

[TPR Zermatt]

55-24-4.

Numbers should take note of.

This thread should not be an argument about if the formula should be there or not, it should be discussing the actual formula.

[TJSteel]

@TJSteel - You can see time in the game. It's a time based race with a time-counter when we stop at 20minutes. Can you give me an example of your 75% with actual numbers please? Based off Bathurst's 185m stint?

I posted this not even 24 hours ago

Not everyone will agree to be fair, but if not, then you've been out voted at 53/21 so there are more that want it than don't, and if that's what the majority want, that's what we'll give them.

Now I've done some testing on the formula and here is what I've came up with and also I've tried to tie this in with a real world scenario

Assuming the lead car lagging out, it is possible under this formula that they could finish above the guy in last, however they would have to have raced 70% of the race before lagging out until the formula starts to give them equal distance to the guy in last.

Now the argument of why should they finish the lobby ahead of the guy in last? Let me explain, because a crash in an actual race could actually result in the lead car not ending up in last place, spin off into barrier and wreck spoiler, buckle a wheel, limp to pits, get wing patched up and wheel replaced. This doesn't mean they actually would be last in the race because as others have said, once the repair is done, straight back out on track, it's gonna cost them, but they aren't forced to sit in the pits for an hour waiting for the next lobby to start.

Now some stats for our race at Bathurst (all based on stint 1), P1 completed 47.68 laps / 184.08 miles, P29 completed 43.69 laps / 168.69 miles, difference being 3.99 laps / 15.39 miles

now lap time for the lead car was roughly 2:01, meaning that they, after lagging would lose 8 mins / 4 laps / 15.20 miles after lagging out 33 laps in / 70%, which would give them a slight lead on the guy in last but it's still going to have cost them.

lagging out later would mean that they'd finish ahead of the guy in P29, or lagging earlier would mean that they finish the stint worst overall.

If you ask me, that's about as realistic a formula I can come up with

[TPR Zermatt]

Ah sorry I did actually see that just thought it was someone else.

15 miles is still pretty tough and completely puts them out of the running through no fault of their own still. No need to be a [Censored] about 'not even 24 hours ago'

[TPR Zermatt]

But if that's a solution that the staff agree on then let's go with it.

[F4H Hakkinen]

Just so everyone is aware, you're all referring to me and F4H who got the conversation going. It's also clear to me that what is being said privately here on the forum is being disclosed to people outside of development and staff which is disappointing.

I started this conversation, again. I started it 3-4 years ago with Deftone and it's always been a topic of conversation. I brought it up at Daytona, I never complained about it and all I think that needs to be done is refining the rule. When both my teams lagged out, again; absolutely I am going to bring it up? Why wouldn't I? What do you expect from me?

A lot of people posting on this forum are overthinking things too much. It's like I kick the door down and demanded retribution but I was just annoyed and frustrated at the universe. It's not TORA's fault I lagged out and I knew the rules going into the event but I feel very strongly about supporting the community. The small teams are just as important as the big teams. This has to be cut down the middle and it's gotta be relative.

At the end of the day, this is just a god damn race and a hobby for you all. You've no idea the effort and time that goes into testing the practicing so you can be competitive. I am not saying this and demanding the staff or organizers do anything but we need some sort of protection from the unknown.

Again, cars vanishing on track is not 'As Real as it gets'. The adaptation of realism here has it's short comings and is used when it suits people. We are still organising lobbies in stint 6 by qualifying positions!!!! What the F?!

[TPR Zermatt]

+1

[Sponsored content]