Re: Community VOTE : TEC Lag out formula.

[Hailfire97x]

Some people compare lag outs to mechanical failure and that's gotta stop because they're not the same.
...
People will use Toyota as an example and I'll use Audi who spent 25 minutes in the pits with Mechanical failure and kept going.

Is that not the same (or roughly equivalent) to lagging out with 25 minutes to go in a stint? Had an issue, went to the garage, fixed it, and ready to go back out on track.

[Diablo 29x]

Perhaps should a lagout rule be implemented, there is a time cut off to where said rule doesn't apply? Like 15 minutes to go or so, what you get is what you get?

[theboomeranga]

Perhaps should a lagout rule be implemented, there is a time cut off to where said rule doesn't apply? Like 15 minutes to go or so, what you get is what you get?

then, if a Formula is used, you'd need to make sure that it is less than last in B lobby can cover in 85 minutes, otherwise it'll be abused as well...

but I do agree, except, maybe 10 minutes, that's only 4 laps or so lost which in the grand scheme isn't too bad

[TJSteel]

trust me, the formula will screw up anyone who lags out and everyone who doesn't will finish behind everyone that does finish, unless for example you have a 4 lap lead on the guy in last and lag out with 5 mins to go.

Other than that you will be last, no question about it.

and a lag is technically a mechanical failure, you could compare it exactly to an ECU / Electronic failure. The disappearing from the track part, no thats not the same but the type of failure could be called a mechanical failure.

A computer system is not too unlike a race car, in the sense that they both have lots of components, of which any of them could fail at anytime. if something on the car fails, it's a mechanical failure, if something within your system fails, that's pretty much the same thing.

The only thing which is not the same, is the fact that your connection / console, or whatever else failed may be fixed within 5 minutes, but you can't join in for another 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour 35 minutes.

So I can see that the lag rule has it's place, but I will make it so there is no possible way that you can lagout and benefit from it, I guarantee that.

[Diablo 29x]

10 minutes works for me. 15 could be a bit much.

EDIT: What Jay said. Won't be benefiting from a lagout, that's for sure.

[LRT Dan]

I will say 1thing because it seems like its just a shouting match at times in this thread. Thank you for the guys who are sorting this and trying to come up with the best solution to fit all not just a few. Not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but hopefully will appreciate you have done something about it.

[HCR Motorhead]

It's ok, sometimes you need a bit of it to cut to the chase. Having multiple views and points to consider is what runs a lot of entities when it comes to critical decisions. But the emphasis is on healthy discussion and moderating it such that you call the line on what does and doesn't fly.

[xebot360]

Don't get why this wasn't put in at the start of the season but that's a discussion for another day.

I'm all for it as long as it's done properly, so the guys who lagged out are behind B lobby if they were in A lobby but not by a major amount (depending when they lagged out and what distances B lobby have done) since it would be unfair on the guys who did the full stint, to be behind anyway. Ik this has been said (probably) but that's my view on it

[desertrainfrog]

So I can see that the lag rule has it's place, but I will make it so there is no possible way that you can lagout and benefit from it, I guarantee that.

Alright, since the spreadsheet master vouches for it, I'm fine with it.

[F4H Lotterer]

Haha I actually quite impressed atm ,we have 1 or 2 kinks to iron out but I believe TJ currently has a great method.

[TJSteel]

currently We've agreed on something like this, haven't tested it yet so the % may need modifying but I'll be running this through old race data when I find out how to make the formula work, circular references are a [Censored] lol

so we take the lap count from the pause screen, subtract 1 to gather your total completed laps (when you start you're on lap 1, but haven't finished anything yet), then multiply this by the track length to get your milage.

We take the worst milage which you've completed in a stint and do a calculation to award you a little of what the difference is, at the minute it's 75% of the distance you didn't have the opportunity to race.


Now I know that people have been stating to calculate it based on the person in the last lobby, but this leaves a massive discrepancy in the fact that the guy in last of B lobby was around 4-5 laps behind the guy in 1st of A lobby over the course of only 1 stint.

so calculating based on last place wouldn't be fair to everyone, so basing it off their worst stint we feel is better, it also gives them the incentive to drive fast all race, because if you do a crap stint then you lose even more distance on your DNF's and gives them something to fight for still <-- I like that

[xebot360]

currently We've agreed on something like this, haven't tested it yet so the % may need modifying but I'll be running this through old race data when I find out how to make the formula work, circular references are a [Censored] lol

so we take the lap count from the pause screen, subtract 1 to gather your total completed laps (when you start you're on lap 1, but haven't finished anything yet), then multiply this by the track length to get your milage.

We take the worst milage which you've completed in a stint and do a calculation to award you a little of what the difference is, at the minute it's 75% of the distance you didn't have the opportunity to race.


Now I know that people have been stating to calculate it based on the person in the last lobby, but this leaves a massive discrepancy in the fact that the guy in last of B lobby was around 4-5 laps behind the guy in 1st of A lobby over the course of only 1 stint.

so calculating based on last place wouldn't be fair to everyone, so basing it off their worst stint we feel is better, it also gives them the incentive to drive fast all race, because if you do a crap stint then you lose even more distance on your DNF's and gives them something to fight for still <-- I like that

As long as B lobby guys are still ahead of the guys that DNF'd (if they get a good amount of miles) then I see no reason to why this wouldn't work. Just don't want a situation where a guy that DNF's still get more miles than guys who completed their whole stint. On another note, would it be for a stint where they didn't DNF (when calculating the thingy)

[Diablo 29x]

With the current formula, you'd stand to lose about 10-15 miles from a 185 mile stint, which is a fairly average distance for normal tracks in a 100 minute stint. Unlikely that someone from a lower lobby would be behind someone who lagged out.

For Le Mans and Nurburgring, the formula may need to be tweaked because it isn't uncommon to be a lap down, but the method for which calculations are made is sound. It's just fine tuning at this point to see what will be fair and what everyone approves of.

[xebot360]

With the current formula, you'd stand to lose about 10-15 miles from a 185 mile stint, which is a fairly average distance for normal tracks in a 100 minute stint. Unlikely that someone from a lower lobby would be behind someone who lagged out.

For Le Mans and Nurburgring, the formula may need to be tweaked because it isn't uncommon to be a lap down, but the method for which calculations are made is sound. It's just fine tuning at this point to see what will be fair and what everyone approves of.

Yeah. Just hope it gets sorted soon. It would need tweaking for every track by the looks of things

[TJSteel]

it won't need tweaking,

the formula doesn't use the time in which you lagged out, which I refuse to add because it's too much hassle for the Marshals to collect this, and can't be accurate,

the completed laps is easy to obtain because you just pause the game.

if you lagout right before the line then yes, that is unlucky and you will lose almost a lap, but you're getting the mileage added in the form of the lagout rule anyway,

it's not so different from someone getting a puncture exiting the Porsche curves, yes it's unlucky, but someone else getting a puncture entering the Mulsanne is real unlucky as they'll lose more distance due to the same fault and being further from the pits.

The best way to do this is keep it as simple as possible, the less data we need to enter the better.

As always though this is racing, longer tracks punish you more depending where you make the mistake

[SFM Benedict]

Totally disagree with the lag out calculator

Tora moto is as real as it gets so if a lag out is trated the same as crash in wec then would wec give them laps..... no .... so shouldnt we be the same. It gives those who arent as quick a chance of a podium we got 4th at le mans cause of this.

[F4H Lotterer]

Yes but a failure or a crash is a dip to the garage and back out asap ,so let's say I disconnect with 60 mins left ,a quick reset of the router (garage fix) and rejoin the lobby as I'm all repaired and good to go with 55 mins left on the ..... does the lobby quit out as I'm all good to go ? No of course not but in real life I'm allowed straight back on track so that argument is void.

[HCR Super T]

Don't really do enduros but I agree there should be something there if u lag out.

People give up there time, arrange family life around these events and for something that out there control to put them way out of contention is a bit crap, to compare that to real life racing a driver gets paid ever way if they crash or car fails!, all we've done is wait time

[xebot360]

I'm against the lag out thing but if it's what the majority of the community wants, I'm all for it. What Hunty is saying is right though since it's basically alienating B lobby which is why I think people have said base it off of last in B lobby's distance. As long as people in B lobby can still get podiums if guys from A lobby lag out, then like I said, I'm for it as long as the community wants it. Whatever happens, hope it gets sorted soon and definitely before next season

[HCR Bellmond]

Trouble with last in B lobby is the marker is inconsistent. If something is going to be brought in it has to fair.

[TJSteel]

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

[xebot360]

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

That should work quite well. As long as it gets ironed out before we join back next season/before next year, then we should be good. My only issue with it is, it gives less of a chance for the B lobby guys to do well which, in the past, we've saw some of them benefit from lagouts. Personally, I think it should be introduced at the start of next season as changing the rules now would be stupid tbh since there are a lot of teams that would've benefited from this previously, mine included.

Easiest way without making B lobby kinda pointless (as they can't progress really) would be do to do another championship alongside this and get teams to qualify and see which one they would be in but, this idea has been shot down before.
Either way, this "lagout rule" needs to be sorted

[Diablo 29x]

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

That should work quite well. As long as it gets ironed out before we join back next season/before next year, then we should be good. My only issue with it is, it gives less of a chance for the B lobby guys to do well which, in the past, we've saw some of them benefit from lagouts. Personally, I think it should be introduced at the start of next season as changing the rules now would be stupid tbh since there are a lot of teams that would've benefited from this previously, mine included.

Easiest way without making B lobby kinda pointless (as they can't progress really) would be do to do another championship alongside this and get teams to qualify and see which one they would be in but, this idea has been shot down before.
Either way, this "lagout rule" needs to be sorted

To your last point about a separate championship- Keep posted for 2017. This concept is being discussed but to what form it'll have, I'm not quite sure. Nonetheless, it is being discussed

[TJSteel]

My only issue with it is, it gives less of a chance for the B lobby guys to do well which, in the past, we've saw some of them benefit from lagouts. Personally, I think it should be introduced at the start of next season as changing the rules now would be stupid tbh since there are a lot of teams that would've benefited from this previously, mine included.

The vote has happened, we changed monza after a vote, so ignoring the communities choice to want the lag rule would be far more stupid, I'd rather upset 20 rather than 50 people.

Easiest way without making B lobby kinda pointless (as they can't progress really)

The easiest way would be for them to drive faster? Sorry but there is no argument there to be honest, Should my car have raced all stints we could have beat some of the guys in A lobby,

If the race was calculated from stint 3 onwards, I was only 3 miles behind the guy in last of A lobby, because I'd lost 2 stints though, I pushed a damaged car around the track so that they were kept in the race, and I wasn't fully focused on the race, my enthusiasm had been lost, if you check my stats I gradually lost the will to race so my mileage suffered, check my stats
stint 3 - 181.41 - good clean stint
stint 4 - 178.48 - crashed more than I should have because I tried to push the car knowing that there was nothing to lose
stint 5 - 177.90 - pushed a car round the track to the pits.
stint 6 - longer stint so data is irrelevant

If I'd raced clean all race, I'd have beaten some of the guys in A lobby so saying B lobby is pointless is completely untrue

As far as I can see, the rule is sorted, and it will be in for SPA,

I'll post the full formula once implemented into the next round

[TPR Zermatt]

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.

[Sponsored content]