ARWS 2019 Rules Discussion thread (New changes 05/05/2016)

[Aerond]

Our annual rule changes thread is here!! Feel free to propose any rule changes, tweaks and ideas here!

For now; here I go with a small list of ideas and things I'd change for the 2019 season;

- Qualifying session lenght; Pre-Qualifying to be a one 30 minute session. Qualifying to be two 20 minute sessions. <- Already in place

- Tyres; Each manufacturer will just offer one type of tyre (paid) for a flat fee that will be the same for every manufacturer. Manufacturer characteristics will be a bit more radical. Goodride will be back to provide free tyres.

- New car development & testing model; This would be the one major change for 2019. Users would no longer be able to purchase an upgrade directly or test for upgrades. On the team owner end: The team owner will want to upgrade an area of the car (downforce / handling / reliability), for a number of weeks (decided by the user) and for a number of credits per week (I will give three or four choices). After those weeks, an RNG will decide the exact quality of the upgrade. On my end, I will ellaborate sheets with the RNG ranges for each number of weeks and each ammount of credits per week. An extra will be available for track testing, which will increase (again RNG decided) the chances of success and/or the ammount of improvement. Logically, the higher the number of weeks and the more money you put into it, the better the upgrade, but the more time it will take, so team owners will have to find balance between timing and money. We would start using a calendar online app to control in which week of the calendar we currently are, and make announcements in the thread as to which week it is, so everyone can keep track easily of time. One would expect that a four week development is going to roughly improve the car in the same manner as buying an upgrade now.

Variation: A simpler variation of the idea I'm considering is that teams are given three time frame options for developing an upgrade (2, 4 and 8 weeks) and a few budget options. Each one of the possible options leads to a RNG range (so you can spend big of a 2 week upgrade at the risk it produces no results or you can play it safer by developing it longer). At this moment this would be my preferred method.

- TESTING MODEL: The classic model of testing will only be used for driver development. For car development see "Car development" section.

- Sponsorship model: There will be changes to the sponsorship/achievement model. Teams will receive sponsorship money based on the tier every race or every number of races -still not decided-, (higher tier, more money). Achievements will be divided in "good achievements" and "bad achievements". Good achievements will pay more to lower tier teams, while bad achievements will penalise more higher tier teams, to level things up.

- Chassis Generation: The new development system means changes in chassis generation towards the 2020 season. From mid 2019; chassis won't be generated out of the blue anymore and teams will have to use time building their chassis. As with the chassis development, you will have to set a weekly budget and, once the chassis is finished (at the call of the team owner), we'll RNG the chassis stats with the same table as now (the RNG range decided by the total ammount spent). An extra performance boost or a performance penalty will be applied depending on how much time the chassis spent in the designing stage. So a team that started a 900 cr chassis in August will have a boost of performance over a team that started designing it in November. To give people some financial help; team owners wanting to scrap the chassis can get the money right after the final race of the season, while prize money will be given on the first week of December.

- Chassis adaptation; from the start of 2019, teams will have to endure a 4 week adaptation to a new chassis when the chassis is bought off other team, resulting in a downforce and handling penalty, which will progressively go down. 1st week of operation the chassis will have a 25% performance penalty, 2nd week, 15%, 3rd week 10% and finally 4th week, 5%. There will be a new test feature which will be "chassis shakedown" to help reduce the adaptation time.

Game enhancements

- Custom fuel strategies: You'll be able to set your own strategies before race starts. You can set a different strategy for each driver.
- Custom car set-up: Appart from custom strategy, you'll be able to decide a car set-up for each car. To make things easy, you don't need to understand how set-ups work in Gp2. I'll give three car setup options per weekend (hi, mid and low downforce options). by default "medium" will be used (the default car set-up will be different each track, so, for example, the Monza medium will still be a Low downforce setup, with Lower and Higher variations, variations won't be very big between setup options, so don't expect miracles here)
- Track information: Along with the weather, you'll receive some extra information on the track, which is Tyre Wear (Very High, High, Medium, Low and Very Low) and type of tyre used (Hard, Medium, Soft or Super Soft compound, tyre type is the same for everyone), to help you determine which would be the best strategy.
- Surprise feature!

[AndreaModa]

All looks good to me. The new testing model sounds complex, I think that will need a bit of work to say the least, but happy to run with it if that's what the majority decides.

[SuperAguri]

I (and I expect TommyKL, RobLomas, Mecha and Londoner) would like to see longer PQ times for the 2018 season...Having one driver not set a time is fine, having 4 with three teams (Kamaha, Gillet and RLR) not getting both drivers out in both races so far looks like sloppy planning by the commission.

[Miguel98]

I (and I expect TommyKL, RobLomas, Mecha and Londoner) would like to see longer PQ times for the 2018 season...Having one driver not set a time is fine, having 4 with three teams (Kamaha, Gillet and RLR) not getting both drivers out in both races so far looks like sloppy planning by the commission.

I support this.

[DemocalypseNow]

Not happy with the proposals so far - there is talk of a revised system and the most basic elements of that system, but no clear explanation of the mechanics behind that system. Without a detailed explanation and example to match, I couldn't support such an idea.

I also don't understand the point of "authorised tracks". Is it to reduce your workload? I can understand a rule that is designed to make running the thing more time efficient, but what I don't understand is unexplained phrases like "suitable for testing at flat fee after Monaco Grand Prix". There's no indication what this means.

[Aerond]

Not happy with the proposals so far - there is talk of a revised system and the most basic elements of that system, but no clear explanation of the mechanics behind that system. Without a detailed explanation and example to match, I couldn't support such an idea.

I also don't understand the point of "authorised tracks". Is it to reduce your workload? I can understand a rule that is designed to make running the thing more time efficient, but what I don't understand is unexplained phrases like "suitable for testing at flat fee after Monaco Grand Prix". There's no indication what this means.

As I said on car development proposal, is just an idea and I will elaborate when I myself have a clearer idea of how to implement it; if i can't find that idea, then I will discard it, so don't worry too much about it. About the authorised tracks, yes, it's to reduce workload; there's no point in having a poll of 100 tracks to test at when, in practice, it makes not difference which track you test at. Also "suitable for testing at flat fee after Monaco Grand Prix", means teams can test at that track for the local fee (10 credits as of now) for a few days after the Monaco Grand Prix, same as if you tested at a regular track after the race held at that track.

[CaptainGetz12]

For qualifying I agree with the 30 minute session for pre-quali. I don't think two 20 minute sessions is enough though.

I have tested various tracks for qualifying for 20 minute sessions and for many of them (such as Shanghai and Malaysia) both sessions have around 4 or so cars not set times. That would leave one driver without a time for both sessions for at least one or two of the races if going by statistics.

I would recommend that qualifying be extended to 30 minutes, or made into one 30 minute session in order to counteract this.

[DemocalypseNow]

OK, so I'll review the remaining points from my personal view;

Session length
Has just been implemented immediately! So we can cross this off already.

Tyres
Sounds quite reasonable in theory. In terms of making the effects stronger, it's too early to make a decision in that regard - we haven't yet seen enough races to witness whether the current numbers make a meaningful impact or not. So this will also be a waiting game.

Chassis change limit
I do not like this idea. I see the motivation for it, but I would say I'm against anything that restricts the free market in-game. A chassis transaction requires two agreeing parties, thus it doesn't constitute abuse of a fixed system. I believe participants should have full freedom to make both good and bad choices, and this includes multiple chassis trades.

However, what I would like banned is chassis gifting. I think there should be a minimum purchase price on used chassis in cases that no equipment is heading in the opposite direction as part of a trade. Perhaps that chassis can't be sold for less than its scrap value if it's a straight buy/sell rather than a trade.

[CaptainGetz12]

OK, so I'll review the remaining points from my personal view;


Chassis change limit
I do not like this idea. I see the motivation for it, but I would say I'm against anything that restricts the free market in-game. A chassis transaction requires two agreeing parties, thus it doesn't constitute abuse of a fixed system. I believe participants should have full freedom to make both good and bad choices, and this includes multiple chassis trades.

However, what I would like banned is chassis gifting. I think there should be a minimum purchase price on used chassis in cases that no equipment is heading in the opposite direction as part of a trade. Perhaps that chassis can't be sold for less than its scrap value if it's a straight buy/sell rather than a trade.

I do agree with this last one. I would like to see how the parts pricing system goes before I comment further though...

[Aerond]

I've made a major change in the Car development area, also added planned changes in the sponsorship / achievements model, please read.

[SuperAguri]

Tyres - Sounds good.

Car Developement - Sounds okay, although we do need more information about what will happen.

Chassis - I think teams should be able to change chassis if they want to, however only once during the season (with the ability to change it at the start or end of the seasons). I do think that if a team wants to sell a chassis to fund a new chassis then they should auction it off, however they should be forced to start the price below the scrap value. If a team goes under during the season then maybe the chassis could be auctioned off for a small price, however teams would not be able to scrap it for more money or sell it on.

[Aerond]

Tyres - Sounds good.

Car Developement - Sounds okay, although we do need more information about what will happen.

Chassis - I think teams should be able to change chassis if they want to, however only once during the season (with the ability to change it at the start or end of the seasons). I do think that if a team wants to sell a chassis to fund a new chassis then they should auction it off, however they should be forced to start the price below the scrap value. If a team goes under during the season then maybe the chassis could be auctioned off for a small price, however teams would not be able to scrap it for more money or sell it on.

Feel free to ask for more information.

About the chassis, since team owners don't want this to change, for now things will stay as they are.

[AndreaModa]

I'm happy for the new chassis rule - always found it a bit odd to just dump one chassis and go for something else but if the consensus is to keep it as it currently is, then fair enough. It's not really broken at the moment.

Car development looks fairly complicated, but I guess it's just a case of picking a value for the cost and the time and going from there? Better than just being able to buy upgrades - currently it makes it very easy for well funded teams to overcome crap RNG rolls on a new chassis.

[Aerond]

Car development looks fairly complicated, but I guess it's just a case of picking a value for the cost and the time and going from there? Better than just being able to buy upgrades - currently it makes it very easy for well funded teams to overcome crap RNG rolls on a new chassis.

I think from the team owner point of view is as simple as the current system; you choose the area of the car, the number of weeks, the weekly budget, and, if you want track testing at the end of the development or not. That's about it. The rest will be down on my end and some RNG.

[Aerond]

Added "Game enhancements" section.

[Aerond]

New changes

[AndreaModa]

The more simple version of the upgrades sounds better to me. I'm all for adding strategic elements into the game but we need to keep it fairly simple otherwise it's no fun any more, especially if people don't have the time, loose interest, and end up getting kicked out.

The chassis construction rules sound interesting, I'd be happy to give them a go. This will really reward people checking in regularly - again, is this fair considering many people have real-world commitments? Hard to say.

The whole issue around working to a calendar app - I think that's going to present problems. You'd have to be a on a tight schedule yourself Aerond, as will everyone else, and if we're going to try and run things concurrently, so will all of the feeder category organisers. If deadlines start slipping (and they will - we can't predict what's going to take up our time/attention in the real world down the line) then it renders the whole thing pointless. I'd much rather see a solution found where we stick to the current format which is flexible and allows breaks should they be required.

Fuel and set-up strategies. Thinking this might be too complex. The temptation is just to leave it at the default, because otherwise you need to know what sort of patterns occur in GP2 for pit stops, etc and from a personal point of view I don't have access to that data and don't really want to spend a while combing through it prior to every race. I understand that for the more involved team principles that being able to dictate how your team operates is a nice addition, but on the whole it seems a bit unnecessary when there isn't really a problem with it at present.

[CaptainGetz12]

The more simple version of the upgrades sounds better to me. I'm all for adding strategic elements into the game but we need to keep it fairly simple otherwise it's no fun any more, especially if people don't have the time, loose interest, and end up getting kicked out.

The chassis construction rules sound interesting, I'd be happy to give them a go. This will really reward people checking in regularly - again, is this fair considering many people have real-world commitments? Hard to say.

The whole issue around working to a calendar app - I think that's going to present problems. You'd have to be a on a tight schedule yourself Aerond, as will everyone else, and if we're going to try and run things concurrently, so will all of the feeder category organisers. If deadlines start slipping (and they will - we can't predict what's going to take up our time/attention in the real world down the line) then it renders the whole thing pointless. I'd much rather see a solution found where we stick to the current format which is flexible and allows breaks should they be required.

Fuel and set-up strategies. Thinking this might be too complex. The temptation is just to leave it at the default, because otherwise you need to know what sort of patterns occur in GP2 for pit stops, etc and from a personal point of view I don't have access to that data and don't really want to spend a while combing through it prior to every race. I understand that for the more involved team principles that being able to dictate how your team operates is a nice addition, but on the whole it seems a bit unnecessary when there isn't really a problem with it at present.

I agree with the simpler chassis development rules. Don't want them to be too complicated for new players.

I also agree that the scheduling can be too much; I'll be gone for 6 weeks in the summer and I know some people will be gone for much longer. We really need some sort of backup plan for running a team if someone goes out of contact for a longer period of time. Might I suggest that we have some emergency members to run teams? This could present a conflict of interest, but at least it would keep the teams afloat for the season.

Fuel strategy and pit strategy I don't mind, though there should just be a default setting for anyone that could not post a setup in time as we have with mechanical sympathy. We should be able to post strategies several races ahead of time if need be as well in case we need to leave for weeks or months on end.

[Aerond]

I agree with the simpler chassis development rules. Don't want them to be too complicated for new players.

I also agree that the scheduling can be too much; I'll be gone for 6 weeks in the summer and I know some people will be gone for much longer. We really need some sort of backup plan for running a team if someone goes out of contact for a longer period of time. Might I suggest that we have some emergency members to run teams? This could present a conflict of interest, but at least it would keep the teams afloat for the season.

Fuel strategy and pit strategy I don't mind, though there should just be a default setting for anyone that could not post a setup in time as we have with mechanical sympathy. We should be able to post strategies several races ahead of time if need be as well in case we need to leave for weeks or months on end.

I'm studying a way to apply the development and new chassis system that doesn't imply working with a calendar and close to reach a solution that satisfies everyone -most likely instead of working with a calendar working in a race-by-race basis with some tweaks for pre-season-

As for strategies and set-ups don't worry too much. There'll always be a default strategy and a default setup which will be alright. If you wanna give it a go, right, if not, you can leave it as is and it'll be fine too (strategy allocation is random and I will keep this system for people that don't modify it so it'll be fair). You can of course choose strategies and set-up options several races in advance if you wish to do so.

[CaptainGetz12]

Another question: Will there still be old F1 car chassis to purchase for use? If so, how would they be treated in either of the new chassis development schemes?

[Normal32]

Another question: Will there still be old F1 car chassis to purchase for use? If so, how would they be treated in either of the new chassis development schemes?

Most pre-2016 cars were scrapped, and there is only one that remains (mine). Grab it if you want.

They would get treated like any old chassis, they will start aging.

[AndreaModa]

I was under the impression that any new chassis purchases would have to be done using the current system after it had been introduced. Although purchasing a chassis with known stats is a big bonus, I'd still go for using the new system. Splash that cash and roll the dice!

[Aerond]

I was under the impression that any new chassis purchases would have to be done using the current system after it had been introduced. Although purchasing a chassis with known stats is a big bonus, I'd still go for using the new system. Splash that cash and roll the dice!

Well, the idea is you can still purchase a chassis off another team if you want to, but need to pass an adaptation period of a few races.