Championship Discussion

haha, fair enough has any hit the 16's at Cat?

No-one really knows what car they will be running yet. I have a mix of times from testing the whole car list, but it'd be pointless putting them up for people to see what cars are quickest at this stage. Once the entry list is up, I imagine people will begin posting times.

i know a lot of people who have selected there car or have a good idea what it is.

That doesn't mean it has been approved. You have to submit your first and second choices of car when you register your team entry. They will then be approved or rejected by TORA staff.

I'm thinking of posting times as I feel the differences between some of the times possible should be highlighted earlier rather than later. I think there will be some surprises at the gaps appearing and in the long run will help with a more diverse field as adjustments will level this out. Currently the way things stand there won't be to much diversity as there are only a few quick cars.

Thoughts please ;O) I don't want to cause an upset.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there.

We started our testing schedule using the defunct TRDC on the base rules almost 6 months ago, which most found to give times very close to each other across the board. When we moved to the final rules, the test team was slimmed to those I trusted to give good feedback on the rules, and a number of cars were dropped from the list due to unfair advantages.

I am never going to be the quickest driver at TORA, but the one person I can compare times against is myself. I ran every car on the car list over multiple ten lap sessions using the same basic tuning set-ups. They gave times, particularly on my final testing session, of less than a second between them. Even cars that can be defined as strong were beaten by cars that you may not have expected. Just this week I beat my quickest time round Iberian Full in a car that was underdeveloped and suffers from understeer. Maybe that had something to do with me getting quicker round the circuit from the countless laps I have done on it, but I still haven't topped it in the car that originally set that time.

At this stage, yes, there are cars that on paper to be strong. I tested a few of them against Biggs and lfcnicklfc last night and had varying results. Yes, they are undoubtedly better drivers than me, but I gave a good account of myself on some of the test races. And they were driving cars that I didn't have good pace in.

The point is that what we have seen in the months of testing that has went into this is that a lot is dependant on driver style and the track. To say that there are only a few quick cars isn't fair, I believe, as that is down to what you have tested and where you have driven them.

The final point I want to make is that car choice will be closely scrutinised. We will be restricting the use of every car to just a few of each, most likely no more than a team's worth in many cases. Your second choice may also be rejected depending on what you have requested. And we will not be handing out those stronger cars to traditionally quick drivers. So I would suggest you all think carefully about your choices and not just plump for what appears to be the best on paper.

Magictap, your feedback will be gratefully appreciated, but I would prefer you PM it to me at this stage so we can look at what you have, and I will take it onboard if there are significant imbalances.

Thanks for the detailed response. I won't post just yet. My opinion has been formed from not only my own testing but from others and also from discussions, so, on this occassion I feel it would be inappropriate to feedback the times and cars I have information on in comparison to the whole list as it stands. Once my own testing has reached a level that could be useful I will happily feed that spreadsheet back to you via PM. Once again, thanks for the indepth response. Matt

And we will not be handing out those stronger cars to traditionally quick drivers.

This scares me.

Chillz & Slim, expect the worst ;O(

AAR Gashi wrote:

And we will not be handing out those stronger cars to traditionally quick drivers.

This scares me.

I respect that decision alot. From last year's TCC, all of the "good cars" were taken right away by the "good drivers" and left everyone else to fend for themselves. The only exception I suppose is PLOW and the Minis. I never tried a Mini, but I heard they were a pain and a bigger pain to tune. I'm still not sure if I am entering, but rules like ^^^ make it hard to say no..

not true.

slider was in a cobalt. which was one of the best cars.

i was in a civic si, which was one of the not good cars.

but for some reason, they decided to make hondas in this game awesome.

Hmm maybe so. All I can say is when I tested the Cobalt, against my SRT-4 at the time, it was almost half a second slower. The SRT-4 in turn was possibly more than a second slower than the SEAT i used for one event before pulling out. The Cobalt was probably one of the best handling cars, btu I never got it anywhere near my other times.
I knew that the Hondas weren't really up to par, but by good cars, I meant mostly the SEAT because I couldn't remember the other fast-going cars. I think the Sentra went quick too. I don't remember much of last year's TCC to be completely honest. But generally, if the rule is what I think it is, it should help spread the fun around.

I'd just like to say a HUGE thank you to all involved in creating the regs and car list for the TCC. It must have been a mammoth effort considering running and planning the other events simultaneously, whilst still having jobs and lives to enjoy. So to all involved, as I've personally not said it out loud enough. THANK YOU ;O) So looking forward to TCC.

glad to have you back

Let me expand upon the statement regarding the car choices.

I fully understand that people will request the use of the car they think gives them the best chance of winning the championship. That's to be expected. But is that fair? Is that balancing performance? Forza is NOT a level playing field, which means we have to use numerous means to balance the degrees of skill from the fastest to the slowest. We want everyone to have the chance of competing.

Season 1 of the TCC saw a field that consisted of the best car at that PI level. Every week, it was two Hondas, mine and garyp3398's, versus a field made up of SEAT Leons. In the end, it was a Nissan Sentra that won the championship, more credit to the driver than the car there.

So when I wrote season 2, I restricted the numbers of each car available. We changed the race format to allow others to get race wins. Again, one car dominated, the Legacy, in the hands of a team that put the utmost into it. Granted, the rules had a loophole that we worked around, but Plow made that car the championship winner. However, the rest of the field was diverse, and various cars won and challenged.

Season 3 saw complete domination from the Plow Mini's, a third car that was not expected to challenge for the front, but the team developed it and the work Tubbi did was astronomical in giving his team-mates the car of the season. Again, we restricted use of the cars to vary the field, and that's what we got.

The point is it wasn't the cars that won the championships. It was the teams and the work they put into them. Plow built a new car from the ground up for every track.

Season 4 sees Plow returning to defend their well-won title. But it is clear that we have now challengers that are more than capable of taking the fight to them. But would it be fair to arm the front-running drivers with the best cars? No. That doesn't mean they won't get the car they requested, but it does mean that we will not allow everyone to run Honda Civic Type-Rs just because they happen to be one of the strongest cars this time round.

Season 2 and 3 have been one horse races. Plow have dominated with cars no-one else would have looked twice at because they are simply the better drivers and tuners. They put in the work no-one else would. I have tried to level the playing field and build options this time round so that everyone has a fair crack. Performance balancing car choices plays as much part of that as balancing the cars themselves. That does not mean I am going to say Plow have to run Saturn Ions, and the Chillz/MagicTap/Slim team get Volvo C30s. What I am saying is don't just put Hondas down as first and second choices, because they will be restricted in use and we will consider carefully before we grant them.

As it happens, I made this post last year - Mugen Motorsport
Since early 2008, my team have competed in every race of the TCC, and competed every race with a Honda. Even when they were a dog to drive and completely off the pace, we persevered. I have every intention of running a Honda on the simple basis that it's what my team has always run - what Honda, I haven't decided yet.

Now if I drive a Civic, which is one of the strongest cars, yet my pace is generally two to three seconds off what the frontrunners can do, would that not be, in essence, performance balanced? I do not expect my team or myself to be challenging at the already-full sharp end of the grid, a podium here or there would satisfy me.

As a side note, previously I mentioned beating my fastest time with a undeveloped car. That fastest time round Iberian was indeed set with a Civic Type-R, a car I have run in testing and worked on the set-up for a lot. On Tuesday, the new DLC came out. I downloaded it, bought and race-prepped a Mazda 3 and threw a basic tune on, and within 10 laps had beaten my Civic time.

Also, Forza lists cars in the garage in order of ascending ability when they are the same PI. Yes, the Honda Civic Type-R is near the top of the list, but I have at least one car above it at 475, a car I would never have expected to be there. And I have heard on the grapevine of one particular member talking highly of a car I have already mentioned that I struggled to put in a good time in.

The point is that you make of the car what you put into it. It's not about choosing the best car on paper, it's about making what you have work. Some championships automatically assign cars without the teams having a choice. I don't want to go down that road, but if we let everyone take the quickest car on paper, we're not only going to look like the one-make championship one of our competitor's TCC has turned into, but the table is going to become very divided very quickly.

All I am asking is that you all think carefully about what you pick, because this year is looking like becoming one of our closest and fiercest championships TORA has ever run.

It is the thing that you are intentionally handicapping drivers that upsets me. If the cars are that unbalanced, then make them more balanced. If the drivers are too unbalanced, then give them an in game handicap, don't not allow them to drive a certain car. That seems like it is going in the wrong direction. I personally consider myself a good driver, and would probably warrent not getting the fastest car, but if that screws my team, how fair is that. That is what I was refering to when I said it scares me. The TCC is supposed to be the grandest of grand here at TORA, I am looking forward to being able to compete in it, but that kind of handicapping kind of upsets me is all.

On a side note, I agree with limiting one car type for a team, and only one team, and then having the other teams choose a different car. But if you are doing that, why not have a draft instead of a blind draw.

AAR Gashi wrote:It is the thing that you are intentionally handicapping drivers that upsets me. If the cars are that unbalanced, then make them more balanced. If the drivers are too unbalanced, then give them an in game handicap, don't not allow them to drive a certain car. That seems like it is going in the wrong direction. I personally consider myself a good driver, and would probably warrent not getting the fastest car, but if that screws my team, how fair is that. That is what I was refering to when I said it scares me. The TCC is supposed to be the grandest of grand here at TORA, I am looking forward to being able to compete in it, but that kind of handicapping kind of upsets me is all.

I really don't think it will handicap a team or driver. I am not saying you're getting a stinker, I am saying we will be allocating very limited car choices to teams. In most cases we operate a first come first serve basis. So if someone who has requested your first and second choices ahead of you, then generally they will get those cars and you will be asked to re request. There will be situations where we reject some requests on the grounds that it unbalances the championship, but if you are a good driver, then there's bound to be something else that you can make work still available from a car list of around 40 options. There are plenty of cars that perform well within a few tenths of each other at a basic level.

Okay, here's what I mean.

These are my testing times from my latest test session where I ran a bunch of cars round Iberian Full Forward. Each car got ten laps, and only the fastest clean laps were recorded.

Mazda 3 – 56.351
Civic 07 – 56.382
Integra – 56.476
Cobalt SS – 56.502
Insignia VXR – 56.562
Megane RS – 56.617
SEAT Leon R – 56.737
Sentra – 56.771

There's 8 cars all within just over four tenths of each other. Basic tuning with me pushing as hard as I could, and as I always say, I am the John George of TORA - I turn up for the fun of the race. And I am some 2 or 3 seconds off the pace of our quickest drivers. A few nights ago, I got beat in a Honda by a Sentra, by someone who has invested a lot of time and effort in Sentras in the past, yet the Sentra was the slowest in that session.

We are not out to punish good drivers. We are trying to generate variety and put the onus on the drivers and tuners, not the car. Like all our other championships, if it seems that certain models are outperforming, we will look at them on an individual basis as to whether we need to alter their PI.

If anyone has feedback to provide, please PM with full details so we can look at those cases.

No worries. The original wording of your post does not reflect the wording of the posts following. The original post I commented on was worded in a way that isn't in the spirit of fair play, and that is what I was commenting on. I am not doubting the cars equality or the fairness of the championship, just frowning on the wording used originally. Thanks.

I for one, would not be upset by "performance balanced car choices". What could be the harm in creating a situation wher everyone had to drive well/drive their hearts out to win?

Can i throw in a suggestion for consideration and maybe something you (TORA) can test. This has been tried and tested and proved to work very well, but I suggest only as an added measure to all those you are currently referring to.

Within the Game Lobby Settings in FM3 there is the ability to create groups and for these groups assign settings. The one setting which could level the field out and be adjusted according to performance (i.e. equivalent to a weight penalty in BTCC) is the power percentage setting.

If you win a race you receive a 15% reduction, 2nd = 10% reduction and 3rd = 5% reduction. If you don't place on the podium with a power penalty in place then you receive minus 5% for each race you miss the podium.

This bunches the pack up nicely trust me ;O)

sorry, would have PM'd this but you post appeared whilst I was typing/watching TV!! lol.

WWR Aero wrote:I for one, would not be upset by "performance balanced car choices". What could be the harm in creating a situation wher everyone had to drive well/drive their hearts out to win?

I drive my arse off every race and rarely win.

sounds good magic im for it

AAR Gashi wrote:

WWR Aero wrote:I for one, would not be upset by "performance balanced car choices". What could be the harm in creating a situation wher everyone had to drive well/drive their hearts out to win?

I drive my arse off every race and rarely win.

Indeed, but what if the guys who "always win" also had to drive their backsides off for a chance at winning?