F1RWRS 2018 Rules Discussion

[Aerond]

Hi again, I open this thread with the aim of discussing possible new changes for 2018. So far there's two ideas over the table. The first is a new car development system which I'll explain sometime in the future. The second, is the sponsorship system, which I'll explain briefly straightaway.

WHY WE NEED AN SPONSORSHIP SYSTEM: So far I'm not very happy regarding Pay Drivers, as it has become the way teams resort to have development money during the season. To me the answer to solve this is a Sponsorship system, which is different to the original Wizzie proposal. My intention is to bring down Pay Driver credits for 2018, so we shift that kind of income to sponsorship, while being able to resort to a pay driver if a team needs to.

SPONSORSHIP SYSTEM PROPOSAL:
It's pretty simple, really.
Each team can freely choose three sponsors (One Tier A, One Tier B and One Tier C), this can be whatever sponsor, no pool of sponsors or anything like that, and can allocate each sponsor to the tier the team wants. Each Sponsorship tier pays the same to every team in the field. Now, the commission based on the Tier of the team, will give each team a goal per sponsor, which will usually be performance based, these goals will be easier for Tier D teams and harder for the best teams. Each time a team accomplishes a goal, the credits will be inmediately added to the teams amount. Most teams will be able to earn more money than with pay drivers if accomplishing the goals, but must spend 100% of credits earnt through sponsors during the season.

Now, please ask any questions, discuss the proposed system, any other change of rules you may want or simply rage about how horrible F1RWRS is (as some will do, I have no doubt about that )

[pasta_maldonado]

It'll be interesting to see what the new chassis system is and how much it'll benefit the smaller/midfield teams.

As for sponsorship, why must 100% of the credits earned be spent mid-season? I frel there should be an option for a team to carry some of the credits through into next season - engine, tyre and chassis deals are all extremely expensive, and allowing teams to keep some credits between seasons will eliminate a high turnover rate of teams. Perhaps 80% of credits earnt should be spent during the season, with 20% being permitted to carry over?

A final point, with the increased amount of credits being available, and the increased prices of components, we should look into raising the credit cap from 1000cr.

[Aerond]

It'll be interesting to see what the new chassis system is and how much it'll benefit the smaller/midfield teams.

As for sponsorship, why must 100% of the credits earned be spent mid-season? I frel there should be an option for a team to carry some of the credits through into next season - engine, tyre and chassis deals are all extremely expensive, and allowing teams to keep some credits between seasons will eliminate a high turnover rate of teams. Perhaps 80% of credits earnt should be spent during the season, with 20% being permitted to carry over?

A final point, with the increased amount of credits being available, and the increased prices of components, we should look into raising the credit cap from 1000cr.

The point of carrying over credits (as it is with Pay driver credits now) can be negotiated. I'm open to keep the current formula (everything earnt up to race 12 to be spent, the rest can be carried over).

I don't think increasing the budget cap will be needed (it can be looked at, although that would benefit the bigger teams in my opinion), since the sponsorship money is intended to be used as development money and engine prices will rise up a bit for next season.

[dr-baker]

How will team tiers be decided? Will it simply be 5 teams in the top tier, the next 5 team in the next tier, etc.?

And I would like that the sponsorship could be carried forward to the off-season for chassis development and engine/tyre deals, but maybe you could draw a line that it has to be spent by the end of the off-season, rather than at its start?

[Aerond]

How will team tiers be decided? Will it simply be 5 teams in the top tier, the next 5 team in the next tier, etc.?

And I would like that the sponsorship could be carried forward to the off-season for chassis development and engine/tyre deals, but maybe you could draw a line that it has to be spent by the end of the off-season, rather than at its start?

The team tiers will be decided same as TV credits, so yes, that's correct.

As for the sponsorship money, as told to Pasta I'm open to keep the current Pay driver rules (all credits up to race 12 to be used, the last 4 races free to be carried over)

[dr-baker]

How will team tiers be decided? Will it simply be 5 teams in the top tier, the next 5 team in the next tier, etc.?

And I would like that the sponsorship could be carried forward to the off-season for chassis development and engine/tyre deals, but maybe you could draw a line that it has to be spent by the end of the off-season, rather than at its start?

The team tiers will be decided same as TV credits, so yes, that's correct.

As for the sponsorship money, as told to Pasta I'm open to keep the current Pay driver rules (all credits up to race 12 to be used, the last 4 races free to be carried over)

As this is to discuss the proposed rules, can I please suggest that season-long sponsorship money (not just from the last four races) be carried forward to the off-season (to be spent before the first race of the following season) so better chassis can be bought? Or maybe this could just be for the bottom half of the grid, so they have more credit for better chassis development?

Or perhaps:

Bottom 5 teams carry forward all of season's credits into off-season?
Next five teams carry forward credits from race 5 onwards only?
Next 5 teams carry forward credits from race 9 onwards only?
Top 5 teams only carry forward credit from last 4 races?

[AndreaModa]

Tiers create problems when you get for example, the 10th place team in Tier B, and the 11th placed team in Tier C, who then receives much more preferable bonuses. It should be a gradual system, like the TV money, so each pays out a little bit more as you work down, or is easier to achieve.

I like the idea of the sponsorship system in this guise - it gives everyone the freedom to sign who they want and doesn't attach stupid clauses to specific sponsors.

What I want to ask is - if the conditions for signing the sponsor aren't met (eg. team must win a race in the season and they don't) then does the team loose the chance of signing that sponsor next year? Or is it just the case that they don't receive the credits, but the sponsor stays with the team?

[Aerond]

How will team tiers be decided? Will it simply be 5 teams in the top tier, the next 5 team in the next tier, etc.?

And I would like that the sponsorship could be carried forward to the off-season for chassis development and engine/tyre deals, but maybe you could draw a line that it has to be spent by the end of the off-season, rather than at its start?

The team tiers will be decided same as TV credits, so yes, that's correct.

As for the sponsorship money, as told to Pasta I'm open to keep the current Pay driver rules (all credits up to race 12 to be used, the last 4 races free to be carried over)

As this is to discuss the proposed rules, can I please suggest that season-long sponsorship money (not just from the last four races) be carried forward to the off-season (to be spent before the first race of the following season) so better chassis can be bought? Or maybe this could just be for the bottom half of the grid, so they have more credit for better chassis development?

Or perhaps:

Bottom 5 teams carry forward all of season's credits into off-season?
Next five teams carry forward credits from race 5 onwards only?
Next 5 teams carry forward credits from race 9 onwards only?
Top 5 teams only carry forward credit from last 4 races?

My idea is, that, on top of per race achievements, there are some season bonus, which can be carried over the following season.

[Aerond]

Tiers create problems when you get for example, the 10th place team in Tier B, and the 11th placed team in Tier C, who then receives much more preferable bonuses. It should be a gradual system, like the TV money, so each pays out a little bit more as you work down, or is easier to achieve.

I like the idea of the sponsorship system in this guise - it gives everyone the freedom to sign who they want and doesn't attach stupid clauses to specific sponsors.

What I want to ask is - if the conditions for signing the sponsor aren't met (eg. team must win a race in the season and they don't) then does the team loose the chance of signing that sponsor next year? Or is it just the case that they don't receive the credits, but the sponsor stays with the team?

TV Money is now a Tier system too, so 11th place receives better conditions than 10th place. I wanted to adopt this just to simplify tasks; it's easier to manage from an organisational point of view.

About your question, it's just a case the team don't receive the credits. There aren't any "conditions"; the sponsor just pays whatever for achievements.

[Ataxia]

Or perhaps:

Bottom 5 teams carry forward all of season's credits into off-season?
Next five teams carry forward credits from race 5 onwards only?
Next 5 teams carry forward credits from race 9 onwards only?
Top 5 teams only carry forward credit from last 4 races?

I don't want to keep bottom teams bound to the back, but I don't want them to be given an advantage just because they're at the back either. Plus, it kinda punishes the top teams for actually having put in the legwork to get there. I think keeping money from the last four races works, and it should be the same for everyone.

I think the sponsorship system can only be a bonus; it means you're not bound to a pay-driver if you want to keep upgrades ticking over. I think it can work.

[DemocalypseNow]

Well, first of all it's an absolute certainty at this point we need different income streams that aren't pay drivers - the prevalence of them in this season's grid is because it's literally the only way to generate revenue mid-season, so we need something else to do that.

What I'd consider doing is not actually having seperate sponsors for seperate goals at all, but perhaps just have a list of goals per 'tier' for teams to aim for. What you could perhaps have is the opportunity for teams to aim to the tier above or below, and adjust the payouts based on whether they're in their assigned tier, ramp up the payments if they are risking aiming for the more difficult goals or pay out less if they're playing it safe with easier goals from the tier below?

A brief hypothetical example of such a system is below (the figures don't really mean much...!);

TIER A
OFF THE MARK - Score 10 WCC points overall - 10cr
PROGRESS - Score 20 WCC points overall - 20cr
CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER - Score 50 WCC points overall - 50cr
VICTORY - First race win of the year - 15cr
TEAM SPIRIT - Score a 1-2 finish - 25cr
THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME - Win your team's home race - 30cr
ON A ROLL - Drivers & team combined accumulate 3 DOTRs - 20cr
DO OR DIE - Four race fastest laps - 20cr
ISLE OF MANN - Four poles - 20cr
BULLETPROOF - Have both cars reach in the finish in three consecutive races - 30cr
BULLDOZER - Break a front wing and still win the race - 20cr
RECHARGER - Suffer an electrical failure and recover to finish on the podium - 10cr
HEEL-FACE TURN - Driver returns from suspension with a race win! - 10cr
BECAUSE I'M DAGNALL - Win four races on the bounce - 10cr
KARMA HOUDINI - Finishes on the podium despite picking up a penalty post-race from the stewards - 10cr

TIER D
IN THE SHOW! - Have 1 car place in the Top 26 in Qualifying once - 10cr
IN THE SHOW AGAIN! - Have 1 car place in the Top 26 in Qualifying three times - 30cr
SEASON REGULAR - Escape pre-qualifying and stay out for four consecutive races - 30cr
CHEQUERED FLAG - Finish a race in the Top 10 - 10cr
MR CONSISTENCY - Accumulate three Top 10 finishes - 40cr
TEAM EFFORT - Both cars qualify for a race - 20cr
THE GREAT ESCAPE - Both cars qualify for three races - 40cr
IN BEFORE THE LOCK! - Qualify both cars in 25th and 26th position - 10cr
A MEDIOCRE MIRACLE - Make it to a qualifying session without scoring any points in the PreQ up that weekend - 10cr
THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME - Get both cars on the grid and have at least one car classified in the race at the team's home race - 25cr
A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY - Score a point in a race with at least seven finishers - 50cr
RECHARGER - Suffer and electrical failure and still finish the race - 10cr
BULLETPROOF - Have both cars qualify and reach the end of a race - 10cr
ALL REL NO LEL - Have both cars reach the end of the race on three consecutive occasions - 40cr

ALL TIERS
AXIS TAKEDOWN - Cause a race-ending incident to a team or driver of German, Austrian, Italian, Japanese, Hungarian, Slovakian, Croatian or Bulgarian nationality during the Norisring GP - 10cr
LOOPHOLE ABUSE - Run five different drivers during a single calendar season - 10cr
BREAK A LEG - Both a team's drivers pick up injuries that sideline them in the same race - 20cr
LOYALTY CARD - Complete 20 days of private testing - 10cr
SUPERSUB - A replacement driver in place of another injured/suspended driver beats the benched driver's best result of the season in his first appearance - 10cr


This way, there are plenty of opportunities in the duration of the season to pick up some credits, and many possible ways of doing so, and we don't need to worry about faffing around actually selecting sponsors individually. Everyone going into the season knows what they need to do, and the ways of picking up cash. Some will be straightforward accumulation of results, some will be more specific...and maybe let's just throw in some utter wildcards for fun?

Basically the aim is to avoid all-or-nothing situations, where people chase one goal and if they don't make it, they're totally cream crackered.

[dr-baker]

I like Biscione's idea.

[AndreaModa]

So in effect what we'd have is not a sponsorship system at all, but rather just a list of achievements. I'm cool with that, but I guess for realism the sponsorship model fits that better. I think as long as we can put together a viable, fair mid-season credit earner then we'll all be happy. I'm not prepared to see the top teams shafted completely for this one though, there's more than enough mechanisms in place now for the lower teams to get a fair crack.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

I have always disagreed with the idea of a sponsorship system on the basis that it adds more unnecessary complication. That being said, the proposed system seems far better than the one Wizzie suggested a while back. I can accept any idea that still gives users free choice over sponsorship

[Aerospeed]

Three races in and we're already discussing 2018?? I'll voice my opinion better as the season moves along...

[RealRacingRoots]

After some discussion of some future rules with Aerond last evening, a change to the current chassis formula is being considered before there are widespread changes to the upgrade system that coincide with the sponsorship model and introduction of Chiefs of Staff for each team.

The stat that will change is Max HP, and it will turn into the Aero Drag stat. The main reasoning behind this is that it will give teams further down the ranking the potential for better results at certain circuits whilst still maintaining their relative position in the pace spectrum (since Race Grip will almost always do more than Power), and also because the Max HP stat has done essentially nothing since In-House Chassis were Introduced. Here's how it Works.

Aero Drag will have a point system of Zero to Fifteen like Downforce and Handling, with 5 being considered the "Normal" stat. Since GP2 cannot simulate Aero Drag (or downforce for that matter), the stat will change the power output of the engine before engine upgrades are applied. The main way to tell the difference between engine power is usually when the car is at the top speed, A general idea for showing how it changes engine output would look like this, how much power changes per point is subject to change:

Base Stat: 0 -> 5 -> 10 -> 15
Engine Power: 725 ->750->775->800

One of the big concerns this would have in the game formula is how it is treated in New Chassis Generation, because a Class 9 Chassis for a Top Team under the current regulations would get a power boost that would guarantee that a team at the bottom of the rankings would almost never be able to move up the ladder. The way that this will, potentially, be circumvented is by giving Higher Graded Chassis a Drag RNG Range that is worse than the lower graded chassis. A chassis that produces more downforce tends to produce more drag in anycase, and this would be a good way to show it. However, a Lower Class Chassis will have a range that covers both above and below normal, to simulate the team either making a Lola T97/30, or a Force India VJM02. Here is a example below:

Chassis Class -- Drag Range
1 - 0-10
5 - 2-7
9 - 3-5

A lot of this is subject to change as it is a big change to how chassis work within the formula, and also would replace Mechanical Approach as the Variable that changes Engine performance. Discuss away!

[AndreaModa]

I have one question: why?

Is this a response to complaints that smaller teams are still struggling to move upward? Because personally I feel that we're getting to the point where teams at the lower end of the spectrum are getting things a little too easy.

Fusion will be well on the money next year. Autodynamics, their current financial mess aside, have also done well. Simpson/Dacia have steadily moved up nicely, and Gauthier are doing likewise. There will always be teams at the back, and by and large, this year it's the ones that haven't been managed as well.

There are already plenty of mechanisms in place to assist in the establishment of a new team, and I don't see why we need to complicate the chassis rules further by hobbling the top teams just because they have earned the right to a decent chassis through primarily the good results from the previous season.

We're not getting seasons like 2013/14/15 again because the field is far more evenly balanced. Look at the drivers' championship! It couldn't be closer! I think the system we have now is more than adequate to deal with any imbalances between the front and rear teams.

You shouldn't be handed a good team on a plate, we all recognise that, you should be able to demonstrate some basic analysis and arithmetic and work out a strategy that works for you. The majority of us can do that, for the rest, well, that's up to them, but the way I see it is if Jones was rooted in pre-q with no hope of qualifying, then I'd want the challenge of getting them back out, without it being handed to me as if I'm some charity case.

I was very tempted to ditch the Jones team and take over Prospec for that very challenge, but that ship has sailed now, but part of me does want to see my team fall down the order so that I can try and get it back towards the front. I've enjoyed progressing from a decent midfield team to one at the front through a combination of rule changes, deals and driver signings. It's stuff like that that makes F1RWRS enjoyable for me. I don't want to see it become too easy, it should be something to work for, and to take a little bit of pride in.

[Klon]

We're not getting seasons like 2013/14/15 again because the field is far more evenly balanced. Look at the drivers' championship! It couldn't be closer! I think the system we have now is more than adequate to deal with any imbalances between the front and rear teams.

The standings we have right now are basically a global accident. I am very much expecting this to sort itself out and end in WINSLOL like all the years before.

[AndreaModa]

We're not getting seasons like 2013/14/15 again because the field is far more evenly balanced. Look at the drivers' championship! It couldn't be closer! I think the system we have now is more than adequate to deal with any imbalances between the front and rear teams.

The standings we have right now are basically a global accident. I am very much expecting this to sort itself out and end in WINSLOL like all the years before.

All right Klon, but we all know that whilst 2013-15 wasn't ideal, it happened, and it's not happening again. Massive disparity between engines? Gone. Top-down distribution of credits? Gone. Aerond managing his own team? Gone. He stole a march on all of us because he knew what he was doing with the regulations. It's taken time but most of us are now there in terms of understanding the game mechanics.

In terms of 2017, we've had 11 drivers on the podium in the first 7 races, that's one more than at the same point in 2016, a season where Alitalia beat Jones to the constructors' title by a single point and the top seven teams all had a least one race win. It really doesn't get more spread out and evenly balanced than that.

There will always be winners and losers, otherwise F1RWRS would be sh*t and none of us would bother with it. That's part of the attraction of having our drivers and teams competing in it. We're all trying to win. If you artificially remove that by introducing parameters that reset the competitive order to allow those teams at the back an equal chance of success as those at the front, then by definition you lose the whole reason for the game existing. You might as well just draw names out of a hat and decide the championship order each season like that.

In the past I've been an advocate of ensuring we give those new teams and those ones struggling the best chance of getting themselves out of trouble. That meant a fair distribution of credits, appropriate costs for things like engines, systems like the pre-qualifying cup to incentivise good performances even in pre-qualifying if a team doesn't make it through.

But what the new chassis proposals do is effectively add in a level of randomness to the competitive order that deliberately impedes the top teams to favour those at the back. It requires no skill, no forethought, just merely a random number generator. Previously you paid for the privilege of having a decent chassis, now, that's no longer the case. If anything, you're penalised for it, so how is that fair? You perform well one year, you do a great job of managing credits, selecting a good technical package, reap the rewards, and are handed an uncompetitive car as a result. It's counter-intuitive, and the opposite of helping out teams at the back. It's the stick rather than the carrot. It solves a problem that has already been dealt with.

[Aerond]

I want to clarify that RRR proposal was on his own; and I only agreed him to expose it to everyone rather than agreed to being introduced.

Also, still thinking a lot about the future of economics within F1RWRS. I, personally, agree with most that AndreaModa said and I'm in the same line of thinking. Now, what I'm trying to come up with is a good way of allowing teams more credits for development while not giving a free cheque worth of credits for development. Hence the idea of a sponsorship system, which would make teams not that much dependant on pay drivers. Right now I'm leaning towards a mix of my proposal, and Biscione's idea (a mixture of sponsorship and a global set of accomplishments), and something that complement pay drivers: ie, if you don't earn enough through sponsorship, resort to pay drivers. Also, this would have some implications in the way of more expenses for the team; Team Staff is an option, but that would add further dept into the game. Maybe I'd better try to come up with an expense that is automatically deducted from the balance and doesn't have an impact (like travelling costs to every race).
Also, I'd like to reform the development system. Testing is all good as it is IMO, but I'm not too happy with the fact that you can just improve the car by throwing money at it. I have some ideas based on my personal opinion and feedback I've been collecting, but I need to lay them down and do some pondering before making a serious proposal. Basically I want not to be totally dependent on money throwing at the chassis but I don't want to make it more complex than it is either. Also, I want to impose a limit on how much a chassis can improve since it's built, because it's totally unrealistic a guy begins with a Marussia and by simply throwing money ends up with a Mercedes.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Maybe I'd better try to come up with an expense that is automatically deducted from the balance and doesn't have an impact (like travelling costs to every race).

Make sure to double the cost if the race is more than 5,000 km away from the last one, unless it's 3 weeks or more after it, assuming it isn't the team's home race.

[Aerond]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

[roblo97]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

That is cool.

Other than this, the current rules are great and should be kept as they are, I can't see what is wrong with them. The smaller teams have it just right in terms of it being a struggle because it is in my opinion.

[dr-baker]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

I think that this is a good rule, addressing one thing that has changed in recent seasons of F1RWRS. There is not as much drama/plot as there used to be in the early days, and I hope that this rule will bring that back.

[Salamander]

I like the idea of aero drag, but if it were to be implemented, I would ask that the steps for each base stat be reduced to maybe 3 or 4 hp instead of 5 - as others have stated, while it is difficult to move up the ladder, it is certainly possible with the right planning. Having too much hp granted for each level of aero drag could certainly upset this balance. That said, I am in favour of this proposal - one thing that has bugged me about the current system for chassis generation is that it is not really possible to make a VJM02 analogue, which is something that a lower team should be able to do in my opinion.

I am also fully in favour of Aerond's proposal.

[Ataxia]

I'm in favour of Aerond's proposal. However, I find Rootsy's a bit needless for the reasons AndreaModa has stated.

To use the example of my own team; we're a backmarker at the moment. Next year, we shouldn't be. To me, that's growth. Gauthier are growing. Nurminen are growing. Dacia are growing. There are teams all over the field who have the potential to be regular points scorers near the front. Yet, we're suggesting that we make it even easier for small teams to go forward? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

I voiced this concern yesterday, and an explanation I got was "yes, but the backmarkers who care will actually take advantage of the system, whereas the backmarkers who don't care will squander the chance". So, how is that any different to now other than removing some of the challenge from the game? I took a big old risk with my choices, and to some degree there's still a big element of risk and I won't know if it's paid off by next year. The only people this new system will benefit are those who play it safe and are content to sit in midfield every year rather than those who are making plans, deals and the like to get ahead.

The chassis are subject to RNG enough. There IS the potential to create something akin to the oft-referenced VJM02 with the boundaries allowed. But that was a rarity; like it is currently. We've got enough element of randomness, and I think any further additions would be overkill.

[FMecha]

I feel kinda out of the loop, what does the VJM02 reference mean?

[Klon]

I feel kinda out of the loop, what does the VJM02 reference mean?

In 2009, the Force India proved quite top-tier on a specific subset of circuits (namely high-speed circuits).

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

I am totally against this, I don't want to be forced out of F1RWRS just because I struggle with thinking of things to write. I would however be in favour of this rule if it could be fulfilled by any post it the thread rather than a long press release

[DemocalypseNow]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

I am totally against this, I don't want to be forced out of F1RWRS just because I struggle with thinking of things to write. I would however be in favour of this rule if it could be fulfilled by any post it the thread rather than a long press release

Pathetic excuse. There's plenty of fodder. There's usually something Kamaha's done once a month to get enraged about, for example.

[Ataxia]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

I am totally against this, I don't want to be forced out of F1RWRS just because I struggle with thinking of things to write. I would however be in favour of this rule if it could be fulfilled by any post it the thread rather than a long press release

Who says it has to be long? Just make announcements; "Autodynamics principal is happy/unhappy/livid with results" and write a couple of quotes. Driver announcements, little news snippets, that sort of thing. Doesn't have to be massive at all. Make stuff up; "Nicolas Steele makes kids at Great Ormond Street Hospital smile" or something. It could be ANYTHING.

[Shizuka]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

Uh, okay, I'll try. (Btw, I sent an email in regards to upgrading )

[DemocalypseNow]

New Sponsorship System

OK, so the previous proposal was met with mostly negative response. This system cures one of the big bugs of the previous one; it ain't complex, it doesn't even require the team owners to make a choice before the season. Rather, it's a list of goals for both mid-season and end-of season payments, for ticking off achievements. The idea behind it is that most teams should be able to do at least a few, some teams maybe more than half, but nobody should be able to sweep up all the credits.

The example table below is just that - an example. None of the values are set in stone. But it demonstrates the philosophy behind this new alternate system. What I think is important is it's a fundamentally different system to sponsorship in Alt-F1 - if we are to bother with multiple competing series, they should each offer something different, rather than be copies of each other.



One of the things above that will need an explanation - a new gameplay feature called Duels. Before any given race, a team owner may release a piece of PR, news, etc, bigging up their chances compared to a rival team. When the aforementioned rival responds to this with a rebuttal of some sort (again, a PR or news piece), a head-to-head challenge for the upcoming race begins. In essence, it's a wager between two people, with 10 credits taken from the losing team's budget and handed to the winning team in the duel. Two important rules for this - a team can challenge another team from any tier above its own, but cannot challenge those below its current tier - in other words, a Tier A team can face off against a Tier C team, but only if the Tier C team instigated the head-to-head. Also, a challenge will expire if it is not accepted before the race immediately following the issue of the challenge, and teams are under no obligation to accept challenges.

What do we all think?

[roblo97]

Awesome, I like it.

[Aerond]

I think some numbers and goals need a few tweaks, also would like to see more achievements based on kek and more random stuff and maybe the inclusion of negative achievements, but in general I think it's good and I like it. Maybe include some events that can happen in the middle of the race (based on overtakings, accidents, a driver charging through the field and stuff like that); but in general, it's a good start.

[DanielPT]

Here's another new rule for 2018; not that everyone will like, but I have my reasons to put it in practice and it's not that much of an effort on team owners part:

- Every team owner will have to post at least one piece of storyline in the thread once before season starts and then once every four races -that's once every month at most-. No exceptions will be made unless I'm notified personally beforehand by the user that he won't be able to post for whatever reasons. Failure to fulfill this will result in inmediate ban of the team from F1RWRS and loss of entry.
This is basically to make sure every team owner is interested in having a team in F1RWRS, so we don't come up again with recent cases of team owners who never show up.

Ah, damn it. Only now I have read this and no, it isn't lack of interest in the series. It is just that I am not much interested in discussing the rules, only playing the game whatever rules exist. Unfortunately, this forces me to give up on my team. A shame. I know that, at the start, I could manage to follow this rule without much difficulty, but eventually life would get in the way and it is dead certain that I would let time slip by and forget about it, losing the entry anyway, so it is better to go this way. I will announce it in the 2017 thread.

[Aerond]

I can finally confirm that we'll be going Biscione's route for in-season credits; Now I need you people to come up with more ideas to expand on Biscione's original idea; I'll define the exact no. of credits per achievement afterwards and then I think we can get 2018 season rolling

[CaptainGetz12]

On the subject of rules posting: I do agree with the concept: We need more people to flesh out the canon, so providing an incentive to do so will certainly help in that regard by encouraging more "fluff" to be written,

I don't agree with the system offering up to 10 credits per race. With the season going on during school time or work I feel that people with more time will be able to create an unnecessary advantage. A person who does one to two posts per weekend is only gonna get 18-36 credits, while someone who does 10 posts for every pre-race session will walk home with 180 credits, which will give them plenty more for upgrades or a higher-tier engine by season end. In this regard I feel the way the news post system is written makes it unfair for people who don't have the time, or in some cases, events to write about, to make 10 posts before the next race, and will be left at a notable disadvantage to those who do have the time.

If I wanted to implement the "news post=credits" system, I would cap the maximum amount of credits earned between races to 2 or 3, 5 max. This would provide a notable bonus for an upgrade or two, but it won't be enough for someone to buy a notably better engine or chassis with the extra earnings.

[DemocalypseNow]

I would say make each story with 2cr and cap it at a maximum of 5. Of course, you can write more if you really want to, but you won't get anything for more than 5 stories between races.

The whole point is to make it an incentive to participate, but I think we need to work on achieving the right balance between time and effort. 10 just seems a little bit too high, even if it's only 50 words per piece. I would encourage the drop to 5 or people will perhaps become so desperate to hit the cap the thread goes out of control, or simply resent the system altogether.

[Aerond]

I would say make each story with 2cr and cap it at a maximum of 5. Of course, you can write more if you really want to, but you won't get anything for more than 5 stories between races.

The whole point is to make it an incentive to participate, but I think we need to work on achieving the right balance between time and effort. 10 just seems a little bit too high, even if it's only 50 words per piece. I would encourage the drop to 5 or people will perhaps become so desperate to hit the cap the thread goes out of control, or simply resent the system altogether.

I was thinking the exact same thing this morning. Yes, I will take care of this.