Grand Prix Rejects

I agree with Biscione we need sponsorship (and TV money) to help us in the game. At the moment the only ways to earn money outside of prize money or tv money or selling your overpriced chassis is by running an F2RwRS driver who finished in the top 5 and by running a pay driver (something Jones is doing which gives none of us a sporting chance to catch up).

Sponsorship and terms and bonuses should give us more chance of risking it all or playing safe. Do we risk a big sponsor and try to keep to their demands or a safe one?
Pay Drivers should be scrapped as it stands and replaced by T2 sponsored drivers and that way their stats will be less all over the place. This is not the early 80s when drivers remortgaged their houses to pay for a drive, todays pay drivers have a sponsor behind them.
Sponsors do change, apart from Ferrari how many teams have kept the same livery since they were created?

We need change, vote for change.

SuperAguri wrote:I agree with Biscione we need sponsorship (and TV money) to help us in the game. At the moment the only ways to earn money outside of prize money or tv money or selling your overpriced chassis is by running an F2RwRS driver who finished in the top 5 and by running a pay driver (something Jones is doing which gives none of us a sporting chance to catch up).

I'd like to point out that when I hired Torrente, Ataxia had made no indication that he would be a pay driver. I signed him on the proviso of him being the F2RWRS champion and a regular driver.

Back to the idea of sponsorship now.

I can fully appreciate that to many team owners down the lower end of the grid that actions like mine this off-season can grate a little. But please remember that I was the last person in 2013 to buy a chassis and engine, and since then have played it smart to slowly work up to the top. Yes I got lucky with the combination I bought back then, but I worked out what was important, what wasn't, and reaped those rewards.

This still applies today.

Aside from the chassis system changing, everything is identical. You buy your equipment, you hire two drivers, and you go racing. You need to keep in mind what you can afford, try and plan what your end budget might be and build a structure that will give you success. Those that have done that well have been rewarded by being at the front. Those that haven't put as much time in have found themselves more often than not towards the back.

This has been the case in the 2013 season, and for every season since then.

So for those thinking that sponsorship is going to radically shake the order up, or alter the status quo, think again! All the sponsorship model will do is make it even harder for those without the time or desire to spend calculating their upcoming season. It is merely another element in the preparation for each season.

And put simply, that is why I'm against it. It is wholly unnecessary, and adds nothing but more complexity to the game. It makes nothing fairer, it doesn't redistribute credits, it won't change the established order. If anything it will make it even worse. The people who put a bit of time in at the moment to come up with a good plan will stay at the front, and those that don't will fall further behind.

So if anyone with their mouth around the proverbial sponsorship system dick can explain to me why it is absolutely necessary on top of the chassis, engine and tyre markets already in place, then I'd love to hear it. Because at the moment it almost sounds to me like this is just another system to try and drive the less active members away from the game. And that is really sad.

AndreaModa wrote:So for those thinking that sponsorship is going to radically shake the order up, or alter the status quo, think again!

This is a patently incorrect assumption. There is no formal sponsorship model to speak of, only rough drafts, so to say that it isn't going to shake the order up is complete nonsense, because nobody has any idea what the sponsorship system is really going to look like. I really don't see what is wrong with simply putting that concern to one side and working on a proposal regardless, and once a formal proposal has been drafted and all pros and cons of a sponsorship system clearly outlined, then debate and vote on whether or not it accomplishes it's goals, and whether it should be implemented.

All the sponsorship model will do is make it even harder for those without the time or desire to spend calculating their upcoming season. It is merely another element in the preparation for each season.

I don't see the issue here? There are plenty of series where there is very little to do but pick your drivers and go. While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, it is nice to have a series which requires a bit more thought - I wouldn't be in RWS1 if it didn't. And really, I think some users are overreacting to the perceived 'complexity' of the sponsorship system: Wizzie's draft of the system involves you basically adding together 60, 20, and 10 in a way equal to 100, and fulfilling various sponsorship clauses, which only really gets complex when you consider the vast amount on offer. My draft keeps the addition of 60, 20, and 10, and simply cuts down on the number of clauses available to make things more clear. And Biscione's draft is a very transparent risk and reward balancing act.

Also, I would urge everyone look at the other, successful implementations of sponsorship in series': that in Klon's Alternate Formula 1, and that in Pi314159's Alternate Formula 1 (Sponsorship is covered under item 3).

Hey, I'm not personally saying I find it complex, you're right - it's about as simple as it gets. But I know for a fact that others won't - you know it as well. And you also know damn well it won't shake up the order! Those that spend lots of time on the series already are mostly the successful ones already. Those that don't spend the time, aren't. A sponsorship system, in whatever form, only complicates things further. You don't need to spend days of faffing around with different ideas to work that one out.

AndreaModa wrote:Hey, I'm not personally saying I find it complex, you're right - it's about as simple as it gets. But I know for a fact that others won't - you know it as well.

I know for a fact people are jumping to conclusions on incomplete ideas. This is why I provided links to two already-existing sponsorship systems.

AndreaModa wrote:And you also know damn well it won't shake up the order!

No, I don't, and neither do you, because nobody knows a damn thing about how the sponsorship system is going to look like when it gets fully ironed out. But it would be very easy to adjust the credits given by such a system to allow teams further down the grid to generally collect more from sponsorship than those at the front.

AndreaModa wrote:Those that spend lots of time on the series already are mostly the successful ones already. Those that don't spend the time, aren't. A sponsorship system, in whatever form, only complicates things further. You don't need to spend days of faffing around with different ideas to work that one out.

If you just don't want to contribute, then fine, but there are plenty of users who want to and are interested in seeing if it is possible to make a workable sponsorship system that can pass through F1RTA. I don't see the harm in at least trying.

Right well, I've quite clearly made my point so I'm not going to bother flogging that dead horse any more. Take it or leave it!

Right, so I 've been involved in F1RWRS since the start, and as the years have rolled by, my free time has dwindled further and further, while people are suggesting things that require more and more thought, time and effort to get anything out of this. Time is simply one thing that I am increasingly lacking. And just simple character role-playing was fine, fun and enjoyable for me. But I have not really been able to develop the characters of the Mann siblings, Ben Fleet or Martin McFry over the past season or two. Because of this, I may well withdraw at the end of next season anyway.

Plus Foxdale have become increasingly rejectful anyway because I'm sure I still don't fully grasp the game mechanics, but that's a separate matter...

And with that ladies and gentlemen, the real aim of all this pointless debate has been achieved. What a shame.

AndreaModa wrote:And with that ladies and gentlemen, the real aim of all this pointless debate has been achieved. What a shame.

1) Aerond stated during the 2016 system that he would like to introduce a sponsorship system, and that he was working on one.
2) Wizzie releases a draft model, which granted had a lot of issues, but was only an initial draft.
3) Aerond states that there will be a consultation period for sponsorship.
4) Different proposals have been put forward by other members.
5) An explanation of the systems reveals that they won't make the series more time consuming or complex than it already is
6) World goes mad, talks of withdrawal, massive "oh, you want to kick certain members out" nonsense flairs up again.

I think what needs to happen is both sides of the argument calm down, and properly think about this. And think some more. This stupid argument isn't helping any of us at all. The implementation of a sponsorship system won't happen for another RL year, let's not get ahead of ourselves.Let Aerond explain himself, and proposals be drafted.

Once a more solid proposal emerges, then we can debate whether or not we want it, or what is wrong about it and what is right. Then, if we could have a debate that doesn't involve either size billion bold, italic and underlined font, or petty accusations about elitism or any accusation in general, that would be great.

It may be that my last point is slightly misconstrued. I am lacking time generally, and my withdrawal has been considered for a year or two now anyway, regardless of this. I just want a game that consists of a few facets, and allows a bit of character development. But having to take into account a chassis, an engine, tyres, pay drivers and possibly sponsorship too, I just lack the time to calculate the best options for balancing the books. Nothing personal against anyone - this game, by its popularity, is obviously working, and the fact that tensions are running high shows that people care about it. But like Jamie and Enoch have less time for podcasting and creating new material for the main website, so I too am having less time. Goodness knows how little time I would have if I ever spent time with somebody else too.

Since things have calmed down, here's my conclusion.

There's no point any more, is there? People against the system won't even entertain the strongest of ideas because there's one buzzword they don't, and those in favour are pushing it too hard. People aren't reading each others' posts either, so it's turned into some kind of miscommunication turdfest.

It's never gonna go through, which is a shame because I really liked Salamander's proposal, but I guess everyone's got their own opinions on the matter. The more vocal members are always going to win out, and right now that's at a stalemate.

I can deal with either system, I have long-term plans for both...

As I have often done in the past, I let things get out of hand earlier. Apologies for that.

On reflection, ultimately, I'm not fussed whether we have sponsorship or not. It might add an interesting element to the game, or it might become a burden, I don't know.

But whether it adds something or not, whatever system we end up choosing it inherently makes participation more complex by introducing something else to deal with, and for some that is offputting - for right or wrong reasons.

Now with a game that already has lots of complex elements, it it really necessary to add another? My fundamental question in all of this is: do we really need it?

And in my eyes, that question needs answering before we then decide to go down the route of exploring different systems and ideas. That's it at the end of the day. If the general agreement is that "yes, a sponsorship system is what F1RWRS needs" then that is 100% fine by me. But it looks to me like some people are very keen to rush this through without considering both sides.

So let's take a step back, and as Salamander explained on the previous page, vote on the drafted proposal for a sponsorship system and if we have the majority yes vote, then let's flesh out the details. Surely that has to be the sensible option here?

AndreaModa wrote:As I have often done in the past, I let things get out of hand earlier. Apologies for that.

No hard feelings, I think I get more or less how you felt, just I'm on the opposite side here. I apologise as well.

AndreaModa wrote:On reflection, ultimately, I'm not fussed whether we have sponsorship or not. It might add an interesting element to the game, or it might become a burden, I don't know.

But whether it adds something or not, whatever system we end up choosing it inherently makes participation more complex by introducing something else to deal with, and for some that is offputting - for right or wrong reasons.

Now with a game that already has lots of complex elements, it it really necessary to add another? My fundamental question in all of this is: do we really need it?

And in my eyes, that question needs answering before we then decide to go down the route of exploring different systems and ideas. That's it at the end of the day. If the general agreement is that "yes, a sponsorship system is what F1RWRS needs" then that is 100% fine by me. But it looks to me like some people are very keen to rush this through without considering both sides.

So let's take a step back, and as Salamander explained on the previous page, vote on the drafted proposal for a sponsorship system and if we have the majority yes vote, then let's flesh out the details. Surely that has to be the sensible option here?

Actually, my preference is we hold off on a vote until we have a more concrete idea on what a sponsorship system would look like - that way, everyone should have an informed opinion on what's actually going on, because I don't think any 2 people have the same idea what is going on here. And with this in mind, is it really wise to hold a vote?

What appears to have been stated above seems sensible - have an idea of how the sponsorship system might work then decide whether it is wanted or not? But regardless of the result, if I get a full-time job after graduating, then my available time for this will decrease. But I am happy to see the proposal(s) before any vote goes ahead.

Hello, dear F1RTA members. I have a question to ask you, so please vote and have your say in an orderly manner.

Question: Would you like to see the F1RWRS calendar extended? If yes, how many rounds do you think it should have?

Thanks!

2 more races would be nice.

I think 16 is a good number, honestly. Maybe one or two extra races if there's the potential for another great track, but nothing above 17 or 18 I think.

I say about 18-20 races would be cool.

I reckon 18 is a good number. Room for all the American races Aerond is so desperate to have and for actual good tracks

I think 17 races is enough.

We could open it out a bit too; Aerond picks 14 of them. The other three go out for a vote between members; you each name a list of three circuits you'd a) like and b) know exist for GP2. The three circuits with the highest number of votes end up on the calendar.

Ataxia wrote:I think 17 races is enough.

We could open it out a bit too; Aerond picks 14 of them. The other three go out for a vote between members; you each name a list of three circuits you'd a) like and b) know exist for GP2. The three circuits with the highest number of votes end up on the calendar.

I agree with this. Although maybe have Aerond fix 14 and then let team owners choose 3 from 6 to 10 others that he has access to and that works to his liking.

And a calendar of 16 to 18 sounds good to me.

I'm staying in line with others and call 18 races the perfect amount.

I'm all for expanding the calender to 18-20 races as well

I'd go for 18 races.

The point's been made, but I'm happy to see the calendar expand to 18 races too.

dr-baker wrote:And a calendar of 16 to 18 sounds good to me.

This

NEW QUALIFYING SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Here's a proposal for a new qualifying system for 2018, I'd like team owners to vote on this to calibrate if the idea is good or not:

We divide the whole grid into 4 tiers as it's done now for Pay Driver tiers. We run four different Pre-Q sessions, one per tier (well, it'd actually be 2; to shorten the thing, one with tiers A and B and the other with tiers C and D, but there would be 4 classifications, 1 per tier). The best 3 teams of each tier + the best 4th team in combined times go to main qualifying, where every driver will qualify for the race. Tiers are reshuffled every 4 rounds according to WCC positions.

Aerond wrote:The best 3 teams of each tier + the best 4th team in combined times go to main qualifying

Wouldn't the best 4th team just be the one from the top tier anyway?

Aerond wrote:NEW QUALIFYING SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Here's a proposal for a new qualifying system for 2018, I'd like team owners to vote on this to calibrate if the idea is good or not:

We divide the whole grid into 4 tiers as it's done now for Pay Driver tiers. We run four different Pre-Q sessions, one per tier (well, it'd actually be 2; to shorten the thing, one with tiers A and B and the other with tiers C and D, but there would be 4 classifications, 1 per tier). The best 3 teams of each tier + the best 4th team in combined times go to main qualifying, where every driver will qualify for the race. Tiers are reshuffled every 4 rounds according to WCC positions.

While this gives more chances to back of the grid teams (like my team) entering main qualifying, it would then mean that a top tier 2 team (higher midfield example) risks spending 4 races DNPQing when moved into tier 1 after the reshuffle. There is also a risk that very fast but very unreliable teams end up in tier four blocking slower but reliable teams from qualifying for a big part of the season. Thus, I would prefer if tiers get reshuffled at every round and then based on the previous race qualifying session instead of WCC positions.

DanielPT wrote:

Aerond wrote:NEW QUALIFYING SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Here's a proposal for a new qualifying system for 2018, I'd like team owners to vote on this to calibrate if the idea is good or not:

We divide the whole grid into 4 tiers as it's done now for Pay Driver tiers. We run four different Pre-Q sessions, one per tier (well, it'd actually be 2; to shorten the thing, one with tiers A and B and the other with tiers C and D, but there would be 4 classifications, 1 per tier). The best 3 teams of each tier + the best 4th team in combined times go to main qualifying, where every driver will qualify for the race. Tiers are reshuffled every 4 rounds according to WCC positions.

While this gives more chances to back of the grid teams (like my team) entering main qualifying, it would then mean that a top tier 2 team (higher midfield example) risks spending 4 races DNPQing when moved into tier 1 after the reshuffle. There is also a risk that very fast but very unreliable teams end up in tier four blocking slower but reliable teams from qualifying for a big part of the season. Thus, I would prefer if tiers get reshuffled at every round and then based on the previous race qualifying session instead of WCC positions.

That's a good idea. The reshuffling part could certainly be worked out in a different way than proposed. My main interest is to see if people would like this kind of qualifying over the current one

Well, while it might increase the chances of backmarkers making the grid, I think the proposed system is unnecessarily complex and in the end probably won't increase the quality of racing.

Sorry, even if I had to keep Boxtel for next season, I wouldn't approve of this system. Eliminating at least one top 5 team, while three out of the bottom five make it to the grid is hardly fair. F1RWRS doesn't need this gimmick. If your team is bad, you don't qualify. If you have a problem with that, withdraw from the series, there are enough people waiting for an entry.

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'

It's a nice idea, but the current system of pre-qualifying works well for all teams on the grid, so I don't see the necessity of changing it. And that's before we address the added complexity of the proposed system.

pi314159 wrote:Sorry, even if I had to keep Boxtel for next season, I wouldn't approve of this system. Eliminating at least one top 5 team, while three out of the bottom five make it to the grid is hardly fair. F1RWRS doesn't need this gimmick. If your team is bad, you don't qualify. If you have a problem with that, withdraw from the series, there are enough people waiting for an entry.

Music to my ears. Another complication that we don't need.

There are a few things in F1RWRS that need refinement and maybe a more detailed system in place.

Qualifying is not one of them.

As F1RTA chair I'd have to support a motion to dismiss this change. A revamped money system to wean teams off their pay-driver crutches should be the priority at this time.

I don't like that at all. Let me explore some hypotheticals here:

Top 3 teams make it, and the fourth and fifth "best" team is going to be sitting on the bubble simply because they were faster than everyone except those three. They might get through on the 13th slot, but they might be a team who picks up regular points in races but doesn't have a great qualifying engine.

The bottom three teams are also guaranteed a grid slot, even if there's no evidence to suggest they deserve it. They're getting given a free handout whilst teams who have actually worked hard to get a good team together might be left by the wayside simply because they were the slowest out of four similarly-paced cars. At least with the current system, if you bathplug it up, you actually have a chance to a) qualify for that particular race and b) get out of PQ for the next one. If you're in the first pool with other cars slightly quicker than you, even if you're faster than the rest, say goodbye to racing for four Grands Prix. Which will wreck your season, of course.

The qualifying system is fine as it is.

pasta_maldonado wrote:works well for all teams on the grid

I beg to differ

Seriously though, the proposed change is unnecessarily artificial and would heavily disadvantage teams at the tail end of each group while giving teams who would be too slow an essential free pass into main qualifying, and most likely the race. And while Gillet would certainly benefit from such a system, we will oppose it, purely out of principle.

As I said before, I'm not so much focusing on the way the tiers are determined and how often they are reshuffled, because there are many ways those could be worked out, but my question is more focused on what if Pre-Q would include every team.

Tiers could be determined every race instead of 4 based on WCC positions, best times from previous Pre-Q session, or even tiers could be entirely drawn before each weekend. Or even 2 Pre-Q sessions with 10 teams each where the bottom 3 from each session are left out and then we move on to a classic 28 car qualifying or the bottom 3 minus the best finisher out of those teams for a 26 car session.

What's the reasoning for it Aerond? Why is it necessary to change the current system? I genuinely interested, it's not a wind-up, I'd like to understand your viewpoint on why the current set-up needs changing.