Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/19/2008
Offline
6687 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

Well, we ALL agree on one thing, we ALL think that our own Opinion is the correct one.......................Smiley Wink

 photo Can-AmRacingFerrari350SWERVSig3_zps05defb05.jpg
Message 21 of 155 (189 Views)
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
45123 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

After two GT5 on-line renditions and after lots of calls from us for more host controls, PD just doesn't seem willing to add these features any time soon. We can't even get private rooms to help alleviate attitude or character problems, to a large degree. Even getting simple, consistant track boundaries have been a problem for them.

 

It's kind of difficult setting realistic rules in this kind of environment, so it's still left up to us. It's going to take a large addition to GT to take care of these things and, after almost half a decade, there is no indication that that is going to happen any time soon. PD is not doing themselves or anyone else any favours by not taking care of this cronic problem and not listening to us.

 

Ever since Prologue was released, we have been calling for more host controls, regardless of what PD can do to make realistic race regulations. Without either of those things, what do you suggest that we do?

 

We can continue to play GT as it is, and continue to complain.

 

We can continue to make these requests for improvements.

Sometimes that works, many times we just wait.

 

We can continue to migrate to other racing environments that are more complete.

Next year is going to be pretty interesting.

 

Am I missing anything? 

Message 22 of 155 (189 Views)
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 09/03/2011
Offline
317 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

Destinkeys wrote:

THE_KART96 wrote:

For "event races" we have a system in place to handle contact. We do not ask drivers to give back places as this can make things worse. In non event races, the host takes care of things as they see fit. A simple Q & A after a race fills in the blanks. And by using GTP OLR you should understand this.


Actually, GTP OLR requires the infraction to return position. If you have a system where any infraction can keep the place, and you adjudicate afterwards (how the hell do you manage that without witnesses?), you are NOT racing according to the GTP OLR. Plus it must take forever to sort out.

 

Should the infraction NOT return position, he needs to explain why at the end of the race, with the only proviso's being, being hit INTO the car in front or the car in front losing it (hitting the wall, spinning, going off in the traps and re-entering the track so as to force contact).

 

It's not really rocket science. But it might be, for all the common understanding of it...

 

BTW, if drivers are informed that returning position takes place at the earliest opportunity they can do it without impeding others (as per OLR), returning position correctly does NOT make things worse... But this DOES further illustrate how a brief printed set of 'clean  racing' instructions would avoid this kind of confusion. The more answers I get to this thread, with the more myriad descriptions of how 'clean' is defined and adjudicated, the more I DO think we need a common set of rules. If we can't even agree on this thread what they are, how is anyone expected to know if PD don't publish them?



Nope, it's pretty easy to enforce. If a driver is taken out or sees another breaking the rules, they send in a pm with names and lap #. We then take a look at the replay, as most races has a staff member in the race, and look at what happened. We then hand out penalties as needed. This effects them in the Championship points standings. If said driver is a chronic, other steps can/will be taken. This dose not help in the open rooms, but it dose help teach proper driving skills. We use to have the give back rule, but , after hearing from the members, switched to the system we use now. Not saying this is better or worse than other systems.

Photobucket
Message 23 of 155 (188 Views)
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
45123 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

SWERV_GRIFFIN wrote:

 

Well, we ALL agree on one thing, we ALL think that our own Opinion is the correct one.......................Smiley Wink


There are a lot of right answers, but it takes getting them implemented to be of any value.

Message 24 of 155 (186 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/19/2008
Offline
6687 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

MastrGT wrote:

After two GT5 on-line renditions and after lots of calls from us for more host controls, PD just doesn't seem willing to add these features any time soon. We can't even get private rooms to help alleviate attitude or character problems, to a large degree. Even getting simple, consistant track boundaries have been a problem for them.

 

It's kind of difficult setting realistic rules in this kind of environment, so it's still left up to us. It's going to take a large addition to GT to take care of these things and, after almost half a decade, there is no indication that that is going to happen any time soon. PD is not doing themselves or anyone else any favours by not taking care of this cronic problem and not listening to us.

 

Ever since Prologue was released, we have been calling for more host controls, regardless of what PD can do to make realistic race regulations. Without either of those things, what do you suggest that we do?

 

We can continue to play GT as it is, and continue to complain.

We can continue to make these requests for improvements.

Sometimes that works, many times we just wait.

 

We can continue to migrate to other racing environments that are more complete.

Next year is going to be pretty interesting.

 

Am I missing anything? 


No, you have summed it all up in a nutshell. I agree that PD should do more regarding host controls. I really wish they would. I also agree that it seems to be highly unlikely that they will, especially at this late stage in the game.

 

I will continue to race, and likely debate these things until the end of time(at least on the Mayan Calendar). I'm not ready to migrate to another game or form of racing, myself.

 

It's plain that some people, maybe me included, seem to just endlessly debate all these things. I don't think WE know why we do it..........

 photo Can-AmRacingFerrari350SWERVSig3_zps05defb05.jpg
Message 25 of 155 (184 Views)
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
45123 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

[ Edited ]
Sep 5, 2012

THE_KART96 wrote:

 

Nope, it's pretty easy to enforce.


After the fact. PD needs to add some controls that are immediate, too, though. 

 

Destinkeys is asking for some things that are before the fact, before someone even enters a race, such as the agreement. He is asking for some immmediate things such as better off-track penalties, which need to be built into GT anyway. Flags would be another example.

 

If GT is going to be a product that satisfies us all, it needs to be more complete. The problem is that we don't know when that will happen. We don't even know if it is on the books for us to get it.

Message 26 of 155 (191 Views)
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
45123 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012


SWERV_GRIFFIN wrote:

 

I'm not ready to migrate to another game or form of racing, myself.


 A few of us in this thread did once before and it paid off handsomely. Smiley Tongue

Message 27 of 155 (188 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/19/2008
Offline
6687 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

Those were Great Times indeed !

 

I think that I am going to start off with a self-imposed 72 hour Ban from this Forum. Things here have gone wildly out of control, and as usual, I'm in the midst of it.

 

Once again, Dan_Zitions, my apologies to you. I'm very sorry for being offensive to you .

 

 

Everyone else, not so much....................Smiley Wink

 photo Can-AmRacingFerrari350SWERVSig3_zps05defb05.jpg
Message 28 of 155 (180 Views)
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 09/03/2011
Offline
317 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

Sep 5, 2012

MastrGT wrote:

THE_KART96 wrote:

 

Nope, it's pretty easy to enforce.


After the fact. PD needs to add some controls that are immediate, too, though. 

 

Destinkeys is asking for some things that are before the fact, before someone even enters a race, such as the agreement. He is asking for some immmediate things such as better off-track penalties, which need to be built into GT anyway. Flags would be another example.

 

If GT is going to be a product that satisfies us all, it needs to be more complete. The problem is that we don't know when that will happen. We don't even know if it is on the books for us to get it.



I fully understand this and wish a ageement would work. But there is just no proper way to enforce it. Other things would be nice, but maybe GT6. Flags, for me, are not as high up on my list. If it means taking processing away from something eles then keep the flags away.

Photobucket
Message 29 of 155 (177 Views)
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
45123 posts
 

Re: Should PD publish a standardized 'Clean Racing' definition?

[ Edited ]
Sep 5, 2012

Enforce it? Probably not, at least not from within GT, but I don't think that would be its purpose.

 

How many on-line EUA have you signed?

How many have you even read top to bottom?

How many have you fulfilled the terms 100%?

 

These things would be self-enforced by someone who actually has a conscience or who has self-respect and respect for others. People who care about GT.

Message 30 of 155 (174 Views)
0 Likes