Daijhi
Registered: 16.03.2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
22.04.2014 11:23:00
|
THE NEW BUDGET SYSTEM
|
Hi Maverick
Maybe I am wrong - maybe others don't agree - but I am finding the new budget rules very dispiriting.
Like many others I naturally invest in elements which I predict will rise in value. But now, if successful, I must forfeit the automatic 2M budget increase. Hence I am overtaken by inflation as I cannot invest in every element that rises in value. Furthermore without the automatic cash increase there is very little point in changing my team set up unless I can successfully predict a retirement. I feel simply stuck where I am.
Can we not return to awarding everyone 2M cash each race as before and limit all valuation increases to 1M per element per race? By that method the successful players will not be able to draw ahead so far so fast.
Surely every player has the same opportunity to predict valuation increases and the traditional choice between more points now or more value at the end of the race was (in my opinion) always the most interesting element of game. Very sadly that element now seems to be gone.
Does anyone else feel like this?
|
Maverick
Registered: 10.01.2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 1132
24.06.2014 22:06:10
|
|
Thank you very much for your suggestions. I appreciate your contribution to improve the game play.
I agree with you that the budget management should not be the main factor of the game, instead of collecting points. But I don't want to eliminate the budget part completely, because it's an important part of the game. The balance must be a good one. Our approach to reach that target may be different. As you wrote, it's a quite difficult issue and I have to act carefully. A mistake could easily ruin the game play.
The calculation of the component costs changes actually is software controlled without any human influence. The formulas are shown in the rules (3.1 development of costs). The simplicity of the formulas is in the eye of the beholder.
|
Daijhi
Registered: 16.03.2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
24.06.2014 11:32:07
|
|
I see what you mean Maverick - it's not an easy issue.
Answering your question, I think the 'extraordinary' adjustments system after race 3 is perfectly fine and (once players accept that budget increases should be limited each race to prevent insumountable advantages to the leading players) I can see no reason why the same principle shouldn't be applied more often - perhaps even after every race. In that way I think everyone will soon understand the 'negative value' system and not be troubled by it.
So my 'off the cuff' system suggestion is this:
(a) The first three races and the 'extraordinary' change afterwards should remain unchanged. Race winners gain 1 million, retirements lose 1 million, Team Managers are valued by their position and tyre/chassis/engine costs remain unchanged.
(b) Thereafter component costs should accurately reflect point scoring potential based upon an average of game points scored over the previous 3 races. Consequently race winners are not automatically credited with 1 million and retirements are not automatically deducted by 1 million. It all depends on the average game points scored over the previous 3 races. The system for Team Managers and tyres should remain unchanged to allow players to make very small budget adjustments.
(c) The formula used to calculate the scale of value changes should be clear, simple and prominently published. There must be no suggestion of arbitary alterations made by humans: software controls everything.
(d) Any component value increase for a team is limited to 4 million per race.
(e) Any component value loss for a team is limited to 1 million per race.
(f) The free 2 million budget increase is given irrespective of component value increases/losses. (thereby allowing all players to gradually advance in real terms)
...just a thought from old Daijhi...
with best greetings from Kreuzberg.
|
Maverick
Registered: 10.01.2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 1132
23.06.2014 22:39:24
|
|
Because of the new Formula 1 engine regulations we don't see a 'normal' season. Midfield teams like Williams are much stronger than expected. The Renault and Ferrari driven teams suffer from their lack of power. That's why some of the team components aren't very attractive this season. But I think that the new budget rules are able to compensate this at least a little bit.
But what do you mean in detail with 'component values could be changed more radically every race'?
The extraordinary adjustment of costs after race 3 has caused a lot of discussions because of the negative budgets. I am afraid that to do this more often wouldn't be a good idea due to the lack of understanding of many players.
|
Daijhi
Registered: 16.03.2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
23.06.2014 16:20:47
|
|
A very interesting debate with many valid points by all....
I think the new budget rules do even things a bit - and that can never be a bad thing. And real game skill still rises to the top - as Dominik is proving yet again this season. I'm just having a season like Vettel at the moment; everything just goes wrong whatever I do. Arghhhhh!....
But the feedback I get from my friends in Berlin is more concerned about limited purchase choices than anything else. So many elements in every discipline appear to be such bad value (points per million ratio) that it doesn't make much sense to buy them - whilst some elements seem to be such good value that it would be crazy not to buy them. For example Bottas has gained more points than Raikonnen in 6 of the 8 races but costs 10 million less whilst Mercedes Customer Engine has beaten Renault Factory in 7 of the 8 races but costs 15 million less. So we are all tending to select components from a very limited list and I think that affects general game enjoyment.
If only poor scoring components were cheaper and the price gaps between components were narrower. Then I wouldn't need to keep selecting amongst the same components every race. Perhaps under the new budget accumulation restrictions component values could be changed more radically every race to reflect actual purchasing demand: thereby making components such as Alonso, Grosjean, Maldonado, Red Bull chassis and Renault Factory etc much more attractive to buy than at present.
Just an idea. Greetings to all.
|
Bright Lights
Registered: 01.03.2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 86
07.06.2014 15:09:17
|
|
Surely the rules are the same for everyone. This is my 11th season with this site and like everything, once people get used to the rule changes everything makes sense. If it was still like 11 years ago then it would not be as much fun.
The development that Mav has put into this is amazing and I salute him.
|
GaKra Motors
Registered: 02.03.2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1066
14.05.2014 18:37:38
|
|
@KatzevonSwish That was an interesting read. I guess I'd be too tight to be a successful poker player, but I have attended a game theory lecture for a semester and it was pretty much the most interesting stuff I've been taught at university.
I agree that this game has many aspects one has to consider, and I think it's even better balanced now. There are many more options now that can make sense, therefore similar choices in all seven teams make less sense than last year. And what's the use of seven teams if they all look almost the same, anyway? To try out completely different strategies is way more interesting.
I think it's too early to discuss changes but of course it's always good to look out for possible improvements. The fact that the Mercedes customer motor can't rise in value without a double victory makes it pretty mighty. Still I don't choose it every time because I know it won't be too expensive a few races later, either.
However, there's still room for a lot of changes in F1. What if McLaren or Ferrari or Toro Rosso gets stronger? What if Williams and Force India fight each other a little bit too hard during the following races? But I agree that we should keep an eye on the issue (and all other aspects of the game) and tell Maverick what we think about it.
|
KatzevonSwish
Registered: 07.03.2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 56
13.05.2014 08:49:18
|
|
Good point, Honda will help. Let's see how the points play out for the next few races.
|
Maverick
Registered: 10.01.2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 1132
12.05.2014 22:26:39
|
|
@KatzevonSwish:
With the Honda engine comeback we will have at least 7 engine components in the next year.
But I am always open to new ideas. Please let me know your suggestions.
@Schumacher:
The Champions Racing League race series starts after race 6 as usual.
|
Schumacher
Registered: 27.01.2012
Location: Turkey
Posts: 17
12.05.2014 16:59:24
|
|
This week i tried to gain 6m. with my 2 teams but thanks to massa i couldnt. He let me down once again 
btw CRL race series starts with monaco ?
|
KatzevonSwish
Registered: 07.03.2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 56
12.05.2014 09:41:53
|
|
I play a game (poker) for a living. I think about games and game theory all the time. One of the things that has always impressed me about the PFRL competition is the balance required between various skills. I would suggest that no champion has ever been noticeably deficient in any one area because it requires competence in all areas to succeed. While it is clearly the case that the new budget rules hamper the expert "budget builders," surely the trick is to adapt? As Maverick says, we don't think much of a driver who can't adapt to the lower downforce levels of 2014.
Having said all that, may I suggest we look at and possibly revise the algorithm for the engine component in 2015? With only six elements it is difficult for an engine to be significantly "out of place" between cost and points. I realize some of the issue is that the Mercedes engine is so dominant, but Mercedes(Customer) is greatly over-performing its cost.
|
