CFR Survey Results - March 2018

Page 1: When to Split to Three Tables

This was a pretty simple question, and it seems pretty clear that people would rather have 7 racers on a table instead of 11.

Result: This year we will split to a third track as soon as our player count reaches 21. So 20 is two tables of 10, but 21 will be three tables of 7.

Page 2: Number of Laps

Another straightforward question, and in this case even more decisive.

Result: We will stick with running races at 3 laps. However, if short tracks in the future allow for it, we may do that track at a higher lap count (ie: Oyama).

Page 3: Track Planning

This was a really interesting one. As a community we're pretty divided on this question, but more interestingly than that, we're also divided on whether or not advanced knowledge makes it more or less "fair". Some of us believe that if you don't give advanced knowledge, then it gives an unfair advantage to those of us who play online. Interesting points all around here.


  • As long as the tracks are made available by the time the preview is published, they could be included there or via a link included in the preview. It is not good to allow some racers access to the tracks ahead of time and not others. I further feel that using the same tracks over multiple years is preferred rather than coming up with different tracks each year.
  • This is something that tends to help experienced players no matter which way it goes (as long as the tracks are already available). If the tracks are new, then it's more a matter of how well a player can read the tracks with little study time.
  • Customize tracks through some random process. Don't just randomly select previous tracks without modification.
  • I'm just starting to play and would very much appreciate having the tracks to study.
  • If the GM races and knows the track then he has the advantage, or anyone helping him. If people do not take advantage of the posted tracks to be run, that is their problem. This is F1 racing, the racers now the tracks they race. By posting the tracks to be run, it levels the playing field for all.
  • Planned tracks links should be included in the WBC event preview. All players would then know what to expect.
  • I think it levels the field a bit for everyone to know ahead, but only benefits those elite few who already know all the tracks if no one knows.
  • Inexperienced players are already at a disadvantage. When the experienced players know the tracks in advance and plan ahead, they increase their advantage even more. By the end of the qualifying bid, only a handful of people (3-5) have a chance to win. Ultimately, the ability to keep new players is affected by their first few race experiences. The experienced racers might be frustrated not knowing in advance, but they already love the game and will keep playing. When I won my PBEM Championship a few years ago, I had most of my race moves plotted before the bids were even placed. I just had to make decisions on the fly with 2 or 3 competitors, everyone else had no chance. Too much time to plan allows analyticos a much greater probability of winning and gives newbees almost no chance.
  • Heh... what's planning?
Result: I was toying with the idea of having Doug select the tracks to ensure no one knew them ahead of time. However, for now I believe we'll stick with our current method. We'll announce the tracks soon and make sure links to the info make it onto the WBC preview page. As mentioned in the comments, newbies will always be at a disadvantage, but that's ultimately part of the learning process. The first year I played lots of people had track maps and my question was basically "where do I get one of those?"

Last year we printed out some packets of track maps for anyone who didn't see them ahead of time, and I think we'll do that again.

Page 4: Table Seating

Lots of interesting stuff here. A surprisingly large number of people had no problem with the way that tracks are currently assigned. Ultimately, when they had to choose it seems like the group slightly preferred randomization with a nod toward placing people based on skill.

Result: In a later comment, one of the respondents mentioned that other games seat people at tables based on AREA rankings. I know that I personally prefer to seat people based on skill, so that's what I plan to move foward with. My next step here is to contact Ken at WBC and ask him whether or not my plan of using randomization with a nod toward skill is sufficiently random to meet their guidelines. If not, we'll go completely random, but we'll see what happens.

Page 5: Table Talk

This was a tricky one, lot of opinions here. I was really surprised to see people use the simulation argument on both sides.


  • Gamers will 'find a way'. Trying to outright ban collusion likely won't work but having it out in the open is better than forcing players to do it secretly.
  • You cannot effectively police table talk, and new players need the advice.
  • Although I've only played a few times it seems to me that as you gain experience you learn to better judge what others may do and this is part of the learning process. No discussion of moves avoids more experienced players suggesting moves to newer players that may or may not be to the newer players advantage.
  • interpreting collusion can bring into a discussion perception, which will bring in too much debate. Best to stick with no discussion of moves. Plus, some racers rely on that collusion to win or be close to winning. they need to win on their own racing skills.
  • Some times the only way to catch up to a leader (without totaly burning through the wear) is to ''collude'' with another player to help wheel him in
  • Please give careful thought to exactly how it will be enforced, if their is any subjectivity required in enforcement, you will have a mess on your hands very quickly. Defining collusion (smiles? nods? winks? etc.) will be very difficult to police. While I kind like 'no collusion that impedes other players--not a voting option) I dread the enforcement dissent so much I'm voting for ALL table talk.
  • Except for a brief time in NASCAR (irrelevant here), no driver is ever able to talk directly to another in real life. I think the same should apply here. Maybe allow discussion of strategies before the race starts, even after qualifying, but not during a race.
  • Collusion is why I quit playing. In no way, shape or form do professional racers on a track collude with each other while racing for position in real time unless they are on the same team (mostly F1). Professional competitors may talk before the race and have some understandings, but there is no direct line of communication between drivers corner to corner, not even teammates in F1. This game does not use teams and the notion that two players should openly collude to block another player goes against ALL rules of fairness in gaming. That's like two monopoly players deciding to team up to beat the third player, of course they will beat him. So why should the third player even play. I was dismayed that some players put their desire to win ahead of fairness in game play and argued for open collusion to justify their colluding when called out on it. Helping a newbee with their moves so they can understand the game better is the only exception, so long as the helper is not helping himself.
  • Not a fan of coordination of moves.
  • You are never going to completely eliminate this. Hello text messages. In the racing world, teams barter and haggle for assistance all the time (at least in NASCAR). This game is different, in that, its brutal to come from behind in a large field. The issue is the nature of F1 racing on road courses. Run large oval tracks and you eliminate this issue...drafting all around. lol.
  • Deals should be allowed but not be binding.
Result: I'm not entirely certain what we're going to do here, but I wanted to open up the discussion and see where everyone was at. I think this might need some follow-up polls, either this year or next. I'm still talking this over with my assistant GM's. Either way, I plan to make some sort of announcement at WBC.

Page 5: Double Slips

I was really surprised by this one. More people than I expected seemed to think that trading slips was perfectly fine. That said, if you combine answer 2 and 3 into the negative category, it basically matches the count from answer 1. Once again, people used the "more accurate simulation" argument on both sides. No easy answers here.


  • Double slip is fine but trading them seems unlikely to represent real racing in my mind. To that end, cars should not be able to trade them.
  • Well, I actually do care. I vote for whatever rules would be more like real racing. Would competing drivers do this in a real race? Trading double slips certainly provides a huge advantage and less experienced players would likely not even see such opportunities.
  • don't use tracks which have double slip zones.
  • IRL as soon as a car overtakes in a straight ligne, the newly ''second'' placed car would immidiatly tuck in behind to gain slip stream, and not wait for half à straight befor doing it...
  • Option three is actually a good compromise, and probably more realistic as well. HOWEVER, it simply places more of a premium on being on the front rank or two, which is already a problem on many tracks. If you went to breaking into 3 tracks at 21, I might could vote for no double slips period. But with big fields, the guys in the rear need every advantage they can get, at least on most tracks.
  • As a racer I know drafting like this happens all the time in real life as an attempted to get away from the field. I think it should be allowed.
  • My vote of Trading double slips is fun should only be counted if it has a simulation argument to it.
  • Slipstreaming is an important part of racing and complete passes from slipstreaming occur many times during most races. The game greatly underestimates the affects of slipstreaming. I think you should be able to slipstream at the beginning of your move or at the the end (not both). And I never understood why the trailing car could not be going faster than the car in front, slipstreaming occurs in real racing regardless of who is going faster (assuming they are both at race speed and the front car is not limping around the track). In real racing, the double slip is the decion of the car being passed, not the passer. Double slips should be allowed.
  • Change the rules: you can take a double slip only if you are 20mph FASTER than front car, this way you gain a space more and you can seat any square you need.Also if you are slower inside the 40mph gap or equal you recive only one slip
  • Tricky. I don't think it should be prohibited as long as there's not an agreement in place. Public shaming should be encouraged!
  • Its racing. Again, teams work together to get their guys to the front and then the gloves come off. Table talk is no different to me than teams communicating to one another in the real world. Collusion is not the problem, the nature of F1 racing as it relates to the tabletop is the issue. I realize it goes against the nature of the format, but run large ovals if you don't like people teaming up to take advantage of the NON choke points. Will the next rule be to make sure people can't clog the choke points to screw the people behind them? Seriously.
Result: More thought is required here too. Initially I was thinking of going with something similar to option 3 in the poll, where double-slipping wouldn't let you pass, but based on the responses, I'm leaning toward not doing anything, at least for this year.