GPLrank - a modest proposal :-)

Preface - GPLrank is fantastic and everyone associated with it is great by me. Seriously. There's been a small controversy over whether GPLrank should allow rankings by track, even if you haven't done all the tracks. Those who want this frequently want to forget the Nurburgring (as if anyone can remember it :-). The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This is very true. But what is also true is that, for the majority of those holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all the other 10 tracks. Kinda a "Dueschland uber alles" thing. I think a better answer is found on the "107%" page. There you get a ranking based on the average percent of the percentage of your lap times measured against the world records. You can't ignore the ring, but it doesn't totally dominate, either. I'd like it even better if the 107% rank was keyed off the Papyrus base, as are the time ranks. "going negative" would be "beating 100%". Many people have taken to posting their rank by time. I think 107% rank is a better measure of how good at GPL most folks are (I accept that the time rank is a fine measure for the top GPL players). Because of the human factors involved, the time rank just weights the Nurburgring too heavily for most of us. Don't dump the ring, just tweak the system. Anyone else have a thought, here? Coda - GPLrank is fantastic and everyone associated with it is great by me. Seriously. bob 115%

Bob writes: >Preface - GPLrank is fantastic and everyone associated with it is >great by me. Seriously. I agree!

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I think a better answer is found on the "107%" page. There >you get a ranking based on the average percent of the percentage of >your lap times measured against the world records. You can't ignore >the ring, but it doesn't totally dominate, either. > I'd like it even better if the 107% rank was keyed off the >Papyrus base, as are the time ranks. "going negative" would be >"beating 100%". > Many people have taken to posting their rank by time. I think >107% rank is a better measure of how good at GPL most folks are (I

Very good idea! Why couldn't there be at least an alternative ranking based on the average of the percents of the "107%"'s of the 11 original tracks? I guess we would have the same names on the top... ;-) And remember: Also in 1967 N-ring was only one of the 11 tracks. All the tracks had similiar weight, from W. Glen to N-ring, when they were counting the points of the season! Arto

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:29:12 GMT, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Unlike david I got destroyed, the main answer was (with variations) > > You only want to do this to improve your rank without improving your >driving >That's interesting. I'd like the change because I want to focus on improving my driving. Memorizing the ring has its' place in mastering GPL, I just don't want it to dominate over everything else.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:17:14 +0100, Leo Landman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>in artikel [email hidden] schreef bob op bob op >30-11-2000 23:45: > >> I'd like it even better if the 107% rank was keyed off the >> Papyrus base, as are the time ranks. > >You would be kidding yourself. The Ring would still dominate (and rightly >so), it just wouldn't be that painfully obvious. Counting in percentages >we'd all be terribly close. You'd have to go to .001% to see the differences >between drivers. >So better drive faster on the Ring and enjoy the big difference that makes >now.

Sure, the ring would still be important, as it should be, but it wouldn't totally dominate as it does now. A one second pickup at the Glen would be worth 8 seconds at the ring. IMHO the difficulties of obtaining these gains _for most GPL drivers_ (not the superheroes) are comparable. Surely it is easier _for most GPL drivers_ to pick up a second at the ring than to pick up a second at the glen. The "terribly close and .001% difference" argument is demonstrably false. Just look at the 107% rankings. I would say the drivers grouped by whole percent are probably roughly comparable in skill and those within 0.1% (which generally spans about 10 drivers in the list) are basically equal. (Kinda like a Florida election :-) Keying off the baseline would spread them a bit more. My bottom line (always) is that those who've created and run GPLrank deserve to make whatever rules they damn well please. I just wanted some discussion of an idea.

I agree. GLRank is all about performance indicators (very fashionable buzz phrase in the UK these days). Basically we all want to know how good or bad we are wrt everyone else. If there are say 2000 records in the database and you are No 1000 then that should mean you are Mr Average. If say 200 records are F2/F3 then clearly you are not what you think you are. You don't know what you are as you don't know how may F2/F3 are in there. On the face of it, their inclusion is somewhat meaningless and a corruption of the database. Using such critical words when referring to the excellent GPLRank facility does not come easily. However including F2/F3 has always struck me as a fundamentally wrong. Strikes me if they were kept separate it would be more meaningful for all. -- Alan Goss GPLRank +8.68

Paradoxically maybe, I haven't spent much time at the Ring at all. I think I've logged far more hours on the other tracks, both in practise and races. Everytime I make some headway in setup and/or driving at the "normal" tracks, I go back and apply it to the Ring and a chunck of time comes off. Nothing to it, having a good memory for tracks and turns helps, of course. Jan. =--- Txl wrote...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Just like David I remember asking for every track to > get the same "weight" in the calculation, just like > David I argued that in 67 you didn't get more points > in the world championship at the ring. > > Unlike david I got destroyed, the main answer was > (with variations) > > It's because you suck at the ring > You only want to do this to improve your rank without > improving your driving > > So I guess a lot of people have been spending DAYS to > improve their ring time (which I didn't) and they are > absolutely refusing any change whatsoever. > > Lobbying is a big part of life for them...

<snip>

What I'd like is for F2 and F3 to become separate on gplrank, surely its time this happened. rms [email hidden]

On Thu 30 Nov 2000 10:45:20p, bob wrote: <snip> > I think a better answer is found on the "107%" page. There >you get a ranking based on the average percent of the percentage of >your lap times measured against the world records. You can't ignore >the ring, but it doesn't totally dominate, either.<snip> > Anyone else have a thought, here?<snip> I, among others, suggested something similar when GPLRank was in its infancy. The "official response" was something along the lines of "well, the Ring is not just 30% of the mileage, but the most important 30%, because it's the greatest test of driver skill". I didn't wholly agree at the time, but I've come around to it, and now see what was meant. Personally, I prefer the present system, and let me assure you that the fact -5.92 looks better than 105.359% is totally irrelevant <g> -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.92) The GPL Scrapyard - http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

I'm with everybody all the way here. Altough the ring is fantastic and a great challenge it make the ranking rather skewed. We mere mortals and ones who haven't the time to practice endless laps just can't get good times at the ring. For instance my I usually run at 105-106% but fo the ring I'm at 109% of the best time and I bet it's the same for a lot of us. I'd also like to see a separate rank for the exrta tracks. Some of these are truely marvelous but because the rank doesn't include them we all spend our precious time trying to learn the ring or spend ages knocking off tenths on the original tracks. -- Some Call Me Tim

bob wrote in <[email hidden]>: >There's been a small controversy over whether GPLrank should >allow rankings by track, even if you haven't done all the tracks. >Those who want this frequently want to forget the Nurburgring (as if >anyone can remember it :-). There is no controversy Bob, and this is very old ground we are going over.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is >something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This >is very true. > But what is also true is that, for the majority of those >holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to >memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most >mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to >improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all >the other 10 tracks.

There are many ways to gauge your ability in gpl. The obvious way to show your driving skill with EQUAL emphasis on all tracks, is a season of racing against the AI or in a league. GPLRank(read the FAQ) is a measure of your OVERALL mastery of the game Yes the Ring is 30% of the total mileage of gpl but it's much more than that. Covering miles down straights isn't to difficult, it's the turns that are hard to master, and the Ring contains 57% of all the turns in the game. Let me say that again, 57% OF ALL THE TURNS IN THE GAME ARE AT THE RING! If you can't be bothered, don't have the time, aren't interested, whatever, in learning the Ring as well as the rest of the tracks, that's ok, but you lack in ability in OVER HALF the game, and a scale that is designed to measure your OVERALL mastery will reflect that. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

[email hidden] (Roger Squires) wrote in <B8CV5.23609$[email hidden]>: >What I'd like is for F2 and F3 to become separate on gplrank, surely >its time this happened. It's been asked for many times Roger, and Uwe keeps giving the same answer. There just aren't enough people with F2/F3 accounts to justify it. Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

[email hidden] (Some Call Me Tim) wrote in <GtDV5.879$[email hidden]>: > We mere mortals and ones who haven't the time to practice >endless laps just can't get good times at the ring. And the scale GPLRank uses reflects this reality. Reality bites;-) This is why the St. Eldreds cup exsists. >I'd also like to see a separate rank for the exrta tracks. Some of these are >truely marvelous but because the rank doesn't include them we all spend our >precious time trying to learn the ring or spend ages knocking off tenths on >the original tracks. Think about some of the things that make GPLRank work. The scale used is based on the STANDARD, the sum time of the 11 original replays. Your best lap times are automatically written to your player.ini for those 11 tracks, and all you have to do is upload that file, and Uwe's wonderful creation does everything else automatically. There is no rock solid standard for the addon tracks, and your best lap times are not automatically written to an uploadable file. What your suggesting would require a TON of ongoing manual work, similar to what the lads at Schubi's have to do, which btw, they don't get anywhere near enough credit for. -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

Just like David I remember asking for every track to get the same "weight" in the calculation, just like David I argued that in 67 you didn't get more points in the world championship at the ring. Unlike david I got destroyed, the main answer was (with variations) It's because you suck at the ring You only want to do this to improve your rank without improving your driving So I guess a lot of people have been spending DAYS to improve their ring time (which I didn't) and they are absolutely refusing any change whatsoever. Lobbying is a big part of life for them... <bob> a �crit dans le message news: [email hidden]...

Quoted text (43 lines)

> Preface - GPLrank is fantastic and everyone associated with it is > great by me. Seriously. > > There's been a small controversy over whether GPLrank should > allow rankings by track, even if you haven't done all the tracks. > Those who want this frequently want to forget the Nurburgring (as if > anyone can remember it :-). > > The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is > something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This > is very true. > > But what is also true is that, for the majority of those > holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to > memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most > mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to > improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all > the other 10 tracks. Kinda a "Dueschland uber alles" thing. > > I think a better answer is found on the "107%" page. There > you get a ranking based on the average percent of the percentage of > your lap times measured against the world records. You can't ignore > the ring, but it doesn't totally dominate, either. > > I'd like it even better if the 107% rank was keyed off the > Papyrus base, as are the time ranks. "going negative" would be > "beating 100%". > > Many people have taken to posting their rank by time. I think > 107% rank is a better measure of how good at GPL most folks are (I > accept that the time rank is a fine measure for the top GPL players). > Because of the human factors involved, the time rank just weights the > Nurburgring too heavily for most of us. Don't dump the ring, just > tweak the system. > > Anyone else have a thought, here? > > Coda - GPLrank is fantastic and everyone associated with it is great > by me. Seriously. > > bob 115% > >

If we follow your "rule" tell Mosley that the winner in monza next year should get only 5 points because there are less turns then in hungary... "Don Scurlock" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: 8FFCDF600dscurlock@news...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> bob wrote in <[email hidden]>: > > >There's been a small controversy over whether GPLrank should > >allow rankings by track, even if you haven't done all the tracks. > >Those who want this frequently want to forget the Nurburgring (as if > >anyone can remember it :-). > > There is no controversy Bob, and this is very old ground we are going

over.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is > >something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This > >is very true. > > But what is also true is that, for the majority of those > >holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to > >memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most > >mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to > >improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all > >the other 10 tracks. > > There are many ways to gauge your ability in gpl. The obvious way to show

your > driving skill with EQUAL emphasis on all tracks, is a season of racingagainst > the AI or in a league. > GPLRank(read the FAQ) is a measure of your OVERALL mastery of the game > Yes the Ring is 30% of the total mileage of gpl but it's much more thanthat. > Covering miles down straights isn't to difficult, it's the turns that arehard > to master, and the Ring contains 57% of all the turns in the game. Let mesay > that again, 57% OF ALL THE TURNS IN THE GAME ARE AT THE RING! If you can'tbe > bothered, don't have the time, aren't interested, whatever, in learningthe > Ring as well as the rest of the tracks, that's ok, but you lack in abilityin

Quoted text (12 lines)

> OVER HALF the game, and a scale that is designed to measure your OVERALL > mastery will reflect that. > > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -5.09 > > Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site > http://gplrank.ringlord.com/ >

"Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Y3LV5.268$[email hidden]... > Just like David I remember asking for every track to get the same "weight" > in the calculation, just like David I argued that in 67 you didn't getmore

Quoted text (7 lines)

> points in the world championship at the ring. > > Unlike david I got destroyed, the main answer was (with variations) > > It's because you suck at the ring > You only want to do this to improve your rank without improving your > driving

I think they may have a point - I've just improved 76 places by switching from the handicap page to the 107% page! Sounds like a good idea to me!

in artikel [email hidden] schreef bob op bob op 30-11-2000 23:45: > I'd like it even better if the 107% rank was keyed off the > Papyrus base, as are the time ranks. You would be kidding yourself. The Ring would still dominate (and rightly so), it just wouldn't be that painfully obvious. Counting in percentages we'd all be terribly close. You'd have to go to .001% to see the differences between drivers. So better drive faster on the Ring and enjoy the big difference that makes now. Bye, Leo

<> The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is

Quoted text (10 lines)

> something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This > is very true. > > But what is also true is that, for the majority of those > holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to > memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most > mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to > improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all > the other 10 tracks. Kinda a "Dueschland uber alles" thing. >

I know your Ring time dominates your GPL-rank. Some people, including yourself, thinks that the Ring should contribute with less than 30 % to the calculation of the GPLRank. I disagree, and here is why. What if the Ring wasn't there, and instead was replace by several other tracks, with in sum added up to 30 pst of the mileage of GPL? Should these track be given less weight in GPLRank? I don't think so. You'd still have to put in just as much practise. The core of the discussion is that some people would like to get a better GPL rank without putting insane amount of practise into it. Trouble is that that wouldn't help. If the Ring were not there, or was weighted less heavily, the faster guys you put more effort into getting faster at the shorter tracks. Thus most of us would have the same position in the GPL rank. Jon Andersen

Although I've never given F2 or F3 a go I don't doubt what your saying, but your also making my point. There's some stuff aimed specifically at F2/F3 drivers, they are searchable in the database, and seperated in the Nations Cup. You can use your Buddy List to create a F2/F3 specific list, and we add F2/F3 leagues whenever requested. But from our standpoint, there either aren't that many F2/f3 drivers in exsistence, or they aren't interested in GPLRank, whatever, we don't see them. GPLRank was/is a lot of work for Uwe and I guess he's not interested in building it(seperate F2/F3 sections) to see if you'll come. If you want more, then sign up and show your support, show your numbers. [email hidden] (Ron Ayton) wrote in <01c05be2$06b16740$bb4336cb@ronayton>:

Quoted text (41 lines)

>Hi Don, > >The reason myself and most of the 30 F3/F2 drivers in the league i am >affiliated with have not bothered entering a driver account, is because >we are not interested in F1.. >I can't speak for the other guys concerning my thoughts on F1, F2 & F3, >but IMO, F3 & F2 deserve just as much a piece of the action that the F1 >drivers get. >GPL is just not about F1, it is about on-line racing, and F3 & F2 >provide better and more realistic racing in a internet on-line based >environment, due to lag and connection issues etc. >This is not a dig at you or the guys that run GPL Rank, but simply the >reason why most F3 & F2 drivers don't bother putting in a driver >account, as i consider F3 & F2 drivers just as talented and fast in >their own fields as the F1 drivers are in their field, so IMO, the F3 & >F2 classes in GPL both deserve their own piece of the action as well, >rather than be affiliated with a class they have no interest in.. > >Cheers, >Ron > >Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in article ><8FFCECC6Cdscurlock@news>... >> [email hidden] (Roger Squires) wrote in >> <B8CV5.23609$[email hidden]>: >> >> >What I'd like is for F2 and F3 to become separate on gplrank, surely >> >its time this happened. >> >> It's been asked for many times Roger, and Uwe keeps giving the same >> answer. There just aren't enough people with F2/F3 accounts to >> justify it. >> >> >> Don Scurlock >> Vancouver,B.C. >> GPLRank -5.09 >> >> Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site >> http://gplrank.ringlord.com/ >>

-- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -5.09 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://gplrank.ringlord.com/

I have a 9 minute ring time (maybe 10 laps total at that track) and when I go from handicap to 107% I go from ranked 738 to ranked 307. I like weighting each track equally. It makes it worth your time to put in some time at the other tracks to get closer to 100%. JB "Neil Raine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:doMV5.830$[email hidden]... > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Y3LV5.268$[email hidden]... > > Just like David I remember asking for every track to get the same"weight"

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > in the calculation, just like David I argued that in 67 you didn't get > more > > points in the world championship at the ring. > > > > Unlike david I got destroyed, the main answer was (with variations) > > > > It's because you suck at the ring > > You only want to do this to improve your rank without improving your > > driving > > I think they may have a point - I've just improved 76 places by switching > from the handicap page to the 107% page! > > Sounds like a good idea to me! > > > >

So with your logic, you are saying that a track with 10 turns is just as easy to memorize as 5 ovals? To tell you the truth, I find it easier to memorize an oval than a 10 turn track. Why do you think online Nascar drivers have such a tough time when they go to road courses? The comparison is just not the same. Especially because on an oval, you do a lap in say 30 seconds...thus if you screw up one turn, you get to retry that same turn in 30 seconds...thus easier to figure out how to go faster. On a 10 turn road course that takes say a 2 minutes to get around, you have to negotiate 2 minutes of 9 other turns to get back to the same turn. By the time you get back to it, you forget what you screwed up on...thus you don't improve as quickly. So your comparison just doesn't hold water. JB "Jon Andersen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ppTV5.396$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > <> The GPLrank folks have reasonably replied that the ring is > > something like 30% of GPL, and it would be wrong to bypass it. This > > is very true. > > > > But what is also true is that, for the majority of those > > holding a rank, the easiest way to improve that rank is simply to > > memorize the ring better and go a little faster there. For most > > mortals it's _much_ easier to find five seconds that way than it is to > > improve your driving and then go and pick up a half a second at all > > the other 10 tracks. Kinda a "Dueschland uber alles" thing. > > > > I know your Ring time dominates your GPL-rank. Some people, including > yourself, thinks that the Ring should contribute with less than 30 % to

the

Quoted text (14 lines)

> calculation of the GPLRank. > > I disagree, and here is why. > > What if the Ring wasn't there, and instead was replace by several other > tracks, with in sum added up to 30 pst of the mileage of GPL? Should these > track be given less weight in GPLRank? > > I don't think so. > > You'd still have to put in just as much practise. > > The core of the discussion is that some people would like to get a better > GPL rank without putting insane amount of practise into it. Trouble is

that

Quoted text (7 lines)

> that wouldn't help. If the Ring were not there, or was weighted less > heavily, the faster guys you put more effort into getting faster at the > shorter tracks. Thus most of us would have the same position in the GPL > rank. > > Jon Andersen >

Hi Don, The reason myself and most of the 30 F3/F2 drivers in the league i am affiliated with have not bothered entering a driver account, is because we are not interested in F1.. I can't speak for the other guys concerning my thoughts on F1, F2 & F3, but IMO, F3 & F2 deserve just as much a piece of the action that the F1 drivers get. GPL is just not about F1, it is about on-line racing, and F3 & F2 provide better and more realistic racing in a internet on-line based environment, due to lag and connection issues etc. This is not a dig at you or the guys that run GPL Rank, but simply the reason why most F3 & F2 drivers don't bother putting in a driver account, as i consider F3 & F2 drivers just as talented and fast in their own fields as the F1 drivers are in their field, so IMO, the F3 & F2 classes in GPL both deserve their own piece of the action as well, rather than be affiliated with a class they have no interest in.. Cheers, Ron Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in article <8FFCECC6Cdscurlock@news>...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> [email hidden] (Roger Squires) wrote in > <B8CV5.23609$[email hidden]>: > > >What I'd like is for F2 and F3 to become separate on gplrank, surely > >its time this happened. > > It's been asked for many times Roger, and Uwe keeps giving the same > answer. There just aren't enough people with F2/F3 accounts to > justify it. > > > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C. > GPLRank -5.09 > > Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site > http://gplrank.ringlord.com/ >