ruggedfox28 said:..I mean, what kind of rule is it where we only apply it to a specific chunk of the standings? To me, that just sounds wrong... how we'd say it down here in California..
And another thing... regardless of which part of the rankings we decide to use for this rule, I personally have zero intention of wasting 30-45 minutes just to move up 1 to 10 spots..
What kind of rule even targets just a segment of the field? If I don't count everyone, there’s always going to be some smart-aleck looking for an excuse to claim we aren't following the book, just so they can demand their own special exceptions.. That’s how you end up creating a mess of precedents and people hunting for loopholes..
I've already blown two whole free afternoons just tweaking things and building spreadsheets so I'd waste less time on the data entry side, and the more I talk about it, the more worked up I get about scrapping this rule entirely!
I don't even know what to tell you, but I really don't like the idea of changing anything regarding the points system or how they're calculated.
That’s something we’ve never messed with lightly.
Besides, that group points thing needs to be sorted before we even look at that criterion.🤔
I haven't checked what the current predictions are, but it's weird as hell that they're all identical across every single criterion, and I can't believe Matthew Young35 actually made the cut.😳
Man, last year I'm pretty sure this only happened once during the entire season.😕
EDIT:
stormybadger8 said:5. The criteria for determining race standings are as follows:
a) the player with more secondary points wins.
b) in the event of a tie after a), the player with more exact position hits wins
c) in the event of a tie after b), the player who earned more bonus points wins
d) in the event of a tie after c), the player with the higher sum of points from all hit exact positions within their groups wins
e) in the event of a tie after d), the player with more hits in high-value point groups wins
f) in the event of a tie after e), the player with the smaller sum of differences between actual and predicted positions in the overall standings wins. In this case, all drivers are counted according to the order listed by FiAe and the competitors
g) in the event of a tie after f), the player who submitted their updated prediction earlier wins—or the one who sent the old prediction first if no one sent a new one. If one player fails to send a new prediction, their opponent wins.
Every single time, it ended up being different based on criterion "e," and we never even reached criterion "f."🤷
Look, just because no forecast gets the exact order right doesn't mean we should immediately jump to Matthew Young35's criteria or his "point f" logic.😳
And honestly, why is everyone making such a big deal out of someone landing in 17th or 18th?
It’s pretty easy to state that if those positions don't award major points, the rank should just be split.
So you just write it like this:
16. Player A
17. Player B
17. Player C
19. Player D
What’s the actual issue here? Being 17th or 18th doesn't decide anything. It carries zero points and has absolutely no impact on the outcome.
It's literally as pointless as the colors in a spreadsheet or the driver numbers.
There is zero reason to complain about it.
In the past, people would have lost their minds over losing a win just because their prediction was technically better but submitted 20 seconds too late.
