QVSGP scoring makes no sense!

[witor]

I don’t believe that the current scoring system used by QVSGP, where 1000 points are divided by the number of players who finish the race, is the best solution. In fact, I find it nonsensical. Allow me to explain.

Currently, if 100 pilots out of 100 registered for the competition participate in the race, the pilot in 4th place scores 960 points while the winner gets 1000 points. Typically, as the competition progresses, some pilots drop out, but the leaders usually continue to compete. The pilot who finishes 4th when there were 100 pilots flying will likely also finish 4th if only the top 50 pilots remain in the competition. Consequently, top positions (not necessarily wins) in early races are worth more points than in later races. Therefore, a pilot who secures 1st and 4th places in two races may have an advantage over a pilot who achieves 4th and 1st place in the same two races - this is not fair.

I believe that 4th place should be worth the same number of points regardless of the number of pilots participating in the race. Thus, I propose that 1000 points should be divided by the total number of pilots registered for the competition, rather than the number of pilots in a given race. Currently, the last pilot receives zero points, and it's even conceivable that some pilots might intentionally land out if their friend is ahead of a main competitor to widen the points gap between them. With the proposed change, even the last pilot would receive some points if others are not participating. Each place would also hold the same point value, and the participation of certain pilots would not affect the fairness of the competition.

To further illustrate the absurdity of the current QVSGP scoring system, consider this scenario: 40 pilots participate in a race, and 38 land out. The second pilot across the finish line, who surpassed 38 out of 40 players, receives zero points. Why should pilots who finish the race be penalized because others have landed out?

The solution is straightforward and should be easy to implement on CC. Divide the 1000 points by the total number of pilots registered for the competition, not by the number of pilots finishing a particular race. This ensures that after the competition's registration is closed, each place will be worth the same points in every race. Awarding zero points to the last finisher is simply absurd if some pilots land out.

[wickid]

I don't completely agree Witold.

If more people start a race a 4th place is more difficult to achieve, hence it is worth more points.

If you look at normal scoring something similar happens. There is something called the "day factor" which takes into account the number of launched competitors on a day. This is not the number of people registered to the competition.

What is not taken into account in the VSGP and is taken into account in normal scoring is the competitor/finisher ratio. If there are only a few finishers the score of the finishers will be closer together. You can see this happening on Condor Club. When the preliminary score is up, you usually have a lower score than the final results. This is because crashers and non uploaders will skew the competitor/finish ratio on final calculation giving finishers more points.

[witor]

If more people start a race a 4th place is more difficult to achieve, hence it is worth more points.

I would agree with you if registered competitors for the competition decided to participate in the race randomly. However, this is practically never the case. Typically, those fighting for top spots continue to compete, while those who opt not to fly are often less experienced pilots. Let me illustrate this further. Suppose you, as an experienced pilot, competed in a race with 30 other pilots and secured fourth place. Now, if we allow an additional 10 beginner pilots, who have never flown in Condor before, to fly the same task and upload their results, it's highly unlikely that you would lose your fourth place position. Achieving fourth place hasn't realistically become more difficult for you, yet you would receive significantly more points. Conversely, if we were to remove the last 10 results, it wouldn't really change how difficult it was to achieve fourth place, but now you would earn fewer points. It's important to stress that pilots dropping out of the competition tend to be the weaker competitors, not just randomly selected.

However, this is just the first, and perhaps less significant, problem that I'm trying to highlight. The main issue is that pilots who land out take away points from those who complete the race. Finishing the race by surpassing a number of pilots who have landed out, only to receive zero points if you happen to be the last to cross the finish line, is completely unfair. In an extreme scenario, coming in second place in a race of 100 pilots could result in zero points. How absurd is that? While this may be unlikely, it's not impossible. Rules and scoring methods should eliminate any possibility of such occurrences, as well as the potential for collusion and unsportsmanlike conduct.

The second issue is the more pressing one, in my opinion.

[witor]

One more thing. Just a piece of advice:

With the current QVSGP scoring system if you realise that you are in the last position on the final glide and have no chance to overtake anyone, just land out. Your opponents will get fewer points which is good for you in a competition.

If the person behind you landed out and you are now in the last position on the final glide with no prospects of improving your position you should now know what to do

[maymar]

Mixed SGP scoring with the FAI 1000p scoring system is not a good idea. If we want to stay with the SGP model, I suggest doing it this way:
Take 3/4 of the number of registered pilots in the competition = 30
1st place gets 30 points,
2nd place 28 points
3rd place 27 points etc.
Then there will be no problems that Wiktor writes about.

BTW why can't we have the classic FAI 1000p scoring?