826 replies to this topic

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Nikos Spagnol
First of all, thanks for Smithy for all his hard work during the season.

...it should be stated that, if a team occasionally ends the season with a surplus higher than the 30 mil limit (which is unlikely), that should be keep, and no further money would be added for that team.

- We would run one race every 3 weeks, with some vacation around Xmas and New Year.

- Firing/hiring periods would only take place after round 3 and 6.

I think all of that makes sense.

edit: except that if you're going to limit firing-and-hiring then you probably need to allow off market bids at any time, or at least keep them to every even numbered round.

[maxie]

How about having only 1 firing/hiring session? There is only one transfer window for soccer in-season. Why not follow them?

[smithy]

I was thinking that as I typed the previous post..... but then if you pick up a dud then you're screwed for the rest of the season.

[A Wheel Nut]

Another suggestion; do away with hiring and firing, and just have off market bids/hiring new staff allowed throughout the season, at any point with a limit of 3 or 4 changes per season, so no one changes staff every round.

[smithy]

Disagree. You need a low risk option to changing staff. OMB are relatively high risk because you have to pay a relative boatload to get the good ones.

[A Wheel Nut]

Good point, why not no restrictions on when hiring and firing can take place, but a limit on the number of hirings and firings during the season?

That way if immediately after hiring someone you don't have to go two rounds with bad staff?

[maxie]

But wouldn't it increase the workload and mess everything up? By having a specific hiring/firing period the guy responsible for doing it will know when he will be busy updating all the personnel info. Otherwise it's like an "ambush" and he will called upon to coordinate the firing/hiring whenever someone pleases.

[Rob Silver Speed]

Unlimited changing of staff, and only off-market bidding. The team owner emails/messages their targets Team Boss to ask what they will accept, or to make a straight forward offer, when both parties are agreed on the terms of the deal, the comissioner is notified of the changing of staff and monies to input into the game.

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
Good point, why not no restrictions on when hiring and firing can take place, but a limit on the number of hirings and firings during the season?

That way if immediately after hiring someone you don't have to go two rounds with bad staff?

Shall we say maximum 4 changes, and can only change every 2 rounds ;)

or in other words, keep it the same

[Rob Silver Speed]

OK a better way of curbing the distancing effect (rich teams get richer, poor get poorer) is to put a cap on development, say you can only spend 15mil on development over the course of the season. If a team still has a lot more funds than the majority of teams would like they must invest some in any of the bottom 3 teams from the previous season who arn't already being invested in, E.G. I have mopre money than people would like so want to invest it, however PBAG are already investing in Winton, this means i can only invest in Dexa, Equipe P and Raptor. (laramie can't be invest in because they arn't a "real" team)

Better for everyone? Still keeping to the benefits that i posted earlier of 10% of prizes and 0.5% per 1% developmentof the invested team.

[Xig]

Count me in for season 3,

10% of prizes seems ok for me,

But I think that geting .5% for each 1% development is too much, I mean, It's highly unlikely that the development in a team can be succesfully transfered to another team. Just because the Dexa got some aero development (relative to Dexa's aero package) doesn't mean that the developed component will fit well in the Sparx... I guess that there should be a chance (%) that the sponsor team wrongly implements development and therefore they get no advance even when the sponsored team does.

But all that just increases the administrative workload, and that's something we are trying to avoid

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by Xig
Count me in for season 3,

10% of prizes seems ok for me,

But I think that geting .5% for each 1% development is too much, I mean, It's highly unlikely that the development in a team can be succesfully transfered to another team. Just because the Dexa got some aero development (relative to Dexa's aero package) doesn't mean that the developed component will fit well in the Sparx... I guess that there should be a chance (%) that the sponsor team wrongly implements development and therefore they get no advance even when the sponsored team does.

But all that just increases the administrative workload, and that's something we are trying to avoid

Hmm just rethought this idea, 10% seems a bit small.

Sparx give Dexa 10mil for the season, Dexa win every race but sparx only recieve 5mil in returns. Mayb 20% would be better that way both sides are happy.

If the development is going to cause more admin work then i suppose it could be dropped, these ideas arn't set in stone anyhoo we're just banding ideas around.

[Makarias]

Count me in for season 3.

As for teams supporting each other I think it's a load of bollocks. Run your own bloody team I say.

The budget issue has been looked at from the wrong way imo. You've been going on about how one should be rewarded for having money left over at the end of the season, which imo is no indication of any skills or anything. You could do no development all season long, score zero points and be rich as a czar at the end of the season. Any extra money above the base season budget should come from POINTS SCORED instead. I'd say that 100k/point scored the previous season seems fair. It keeps the budget differences at a reasonable level and is fully based on MERIT.

Yay to fewer firing/hiring sessions. Two per season is enough. Swapping crews just between teams takes away the option of getting a crew member who wasn't signed by anyone at the start, so I don't like that.

Yay to three weeks between each race. Less stressful for everyone.

I would suggest that we drop the option of running underweight. I don't wanna be beaten by someone going for an easy option to gain speed when I spend my ass off to occasionally get an improvement. If we keep the damn option, I'd at least want the opportunity to protest the cheating ****'s result.

And I never understood wtf the pre-season test thingy is good for anyway? Waste of time imo.

Formality thingies:
-Bid sums for drivers etc to be stated on a per race basis, ie 100k/race instead of 1mil/ten race season. This for less confusion overall.
-If bloody Underweight stays, the Not Underweight option in the development sheet to be submitted pre-race changes number from 2 (two) to 0 (zero). Coz it makes sense.

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by Makarias
Count me in for season 3.

As for teams supporting each other I think it's a load of bollocks. Run your own bloody team I say.

The budget issue has been looked at from the wrong way imo. You've been going on about how one should be rewarded for having money left over at the end of the season, which imo is no indication of any skills or anything. You could do no development all season long, score zero points and be rich as a czar at the end of the season. Any extra money above the base season budget should come from POINTS SCORED instead. I'd say that 100k/point scored the previous season seems fair. It keeps the budget differences at a reasonable level and is fully based on MERIT.

Yay to fewer firing/hiring sessions. Two per season is enough. Swapping crews just between teams takes away the option of getting a crew member who wasn't signed by anyone at the start, so I don't like that.

Yay to three weeks between each race. Less stressful for everyone.

I would suggest that we drop the option of running underweight. I don't wanna be beaten by someone going for an easy option to gain speed when I spend my ass off to occasionally get an improvement. If we keep the damn option, I'd at least want the opportunity to protest the cheating ****'s result.

And I never understood wtf the pre-season test thingy is good for anyway? Waste of time imo.

Formality thingies:
-Bid sums for drivers etc to be stated on a per race basis, ie 100k/race instead of 1mil/ten race season. This for less confusion overall.
-If bloody Underweight stays, the Not Underweight option in the development sheet to be submitted pre-race changes number from 2 (two) to 0 (zero). Coz it makes sense.

The underweight option was protested when Jess had an accident, however for that race my cars were running the corrent weight ;) But i do agree that it should be removed

[Xig]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed


Hmm just rethought this idea, 10% seems a bit small.

Sparx give Dexa 10mil for the season, Dexa win every race but sparx only recieve 5mil in returns. Mayb 20% would be better that way both sides are happy.

If the development is going to cause more admin work then i suppose it could be dropped, these ideas arn't set in stone anyhoo we're just banding ideas around.

I'm not saying that we should forget the 'shared' development, maybe the way I thought it would be 'fair' was too much complicated...

Now that you put it that way Rob, even 20% seems little revenue for Sparx... I'm thinking about how much return over investment venture capitalist expect to get from a given investment... I mean it's a high risk, who knows when the Dexa drivers won't even qualify for the race ...
As suggested for the biding/hiring process, maybe team bosses can get to an agreement by email, something like:
'Sparx will sponsor 10mil to Dexa. Dexa will give 20% of the prizes that the team gets to Sparx. Dexa will give to Sparx 50% of all its money left (if any) at the end of the season. Sparx will give 5mil at the start of the season, and at the start of the second half of the season, Sparx will give the remaining 5mil unless some of the following happens:
a)Dexa has failed to score at least 6 points,
b) Dexa is currently higher on driver and/or constructor championships than Sparx.'

I mean each team may have different needs and interests. So they can talk about it and once the 2 partys agree, the agreement is sent to the Comissioner so he can aprove it.

Just my thoughts (don't know if they worth 2 cents)

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Makarias
And I never understood wtf the pre-season test thingy is good for anyway? Waste of time imo.

The pre season test was purely for me to make sure that all of the things that I guessed about how the game worked actually did work. I didn't get any help from BR to take over the administration and I was worried that I was going to **** it up.

I wouldn't propose a pre season test this time around (even if I wasn't the adminstrator), just straight into a 10 race season.

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Makarias
The budget issue has been looked at from the wrong way imo. You've been going on about how one should be rewarded for having money left over at the end of the season, which imo is no indication of any skills or anything. You could do no development all season long, score zero points and be rich as a czar at the end of the season. Any extra money above the base season budget should come from POINTS SCORED instead. I'd say that 100k/point scored the previous season seems fair. It keeps the budget differences at a reasonable level and is fully based on MERIT.

I think I understand where you're going but for the dummies (me) some examples might help.

* How does this work where Pink Blaze have 61 points and so about $30m in prize money during the season and a net bank balance well in excess of $20m?
* How will this help Maxie who has just won $5m that he can't do anything with?
* Team Plutto won $5m at Belgium but was only able to spend about $2.6m of it before the season ended. Does he still get to use his leftover cash?

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by smithy
I think I understand where you're going but for the dummies (me) some examples might help.

* How does this work where Pink Blaze have 61 points and so about $30m in prize money during the season and a net bank balance well in excess of $20m?
* How will this help Maxie who has just won $5m that he can't do anything with?
* Team Plutto won $5m at Belgium but was only able to spend about $2.6m of it before the season ended. Does he still get to use his leftover cash?

How about a rule that states all winnings must be spent within x amount of races? If it can't be spent because you've got too much, you lose it.

That way the guys who won at the end of the season can spend that money early next season.

[maxie]

How about using the formula below to set the budget for all teams:

A fixed sum + Prize money won by the team the previous season

We can add variables into the formula, such as:

A fixed sum + (Prize money won by the team the previous season / 2)

That would somewhat reduce the difference between the richer and poorer teams, while it still rewards teams for winning prize money in the previous season. And in theory, it's like sharing TV revenues, where money are given to teams according to their points scored.

[Makarias]

smithy, my thought is that the budget balance of the previous year is totally irrelevant for the next one, unless it's a negative one of course. If we go by a ten race season, the base budget for everyone would be 20 mil, and the way I've suggested it Pink Blaze would start the coming season with 26.1 millions. Of course you wouldn't have the chance to spend prize money from the season finale, but otoh it will give you a 900k budget boost for the next season, which I think is a substantial perk. If that sounds unfair to others, perhaps points scored at the final couple of races in the previous season could be weighted, to have double or triple value? That could make sense, as end-of-season results tell something about the team chief's management skills unlike early season results, where the emphasis is on successful bidding.

Speaking of bidding btw, I'd also suggest that the initial bidding for the season shouldn't be closed until sufficiently many teams have submitted their bidding sheets. If there are too few teams in the bidding, there isn't enough competition for drivers etc, and it becomes too easy for the bidding teams to make super bargains. At the very least ten bidding sheets should be in it, if not more.

[Hoax]

About team budgets - more formulas...

First, I think it is good that teams are rewarded in some degree for their results in previous season however the advantage cannot be so huge that they can remain unchallenged for the next season.

Any formula just taking left over money from previous season and carry it over to next season will cause problem and I am a bit worried that we may get "sleeper" teams spending nothing just trying to accumulate money for next season. The point to focus on is to only be able to carry over money earned in the last season, not any money just saved. So, my two suggestions:

A: Every team get a minimum starting found say $2M per race and money carried over to the next session is based on the profit minus the spending from the previous season. Say a team won $25M in price money and spend $20M on development then they could carry over the difference 25-20 = $5M, thus starting a 10 race season with 20+5 = $25M.

B. At the beginning of a new season no money are carried over but the teams are given bonuses according to constructors standings alternative points scored in the last season.

[Hoax]

Car development

What kind of car does the team start with in the beginning of a new season? Does the design team start fresh or do they carry over some (all?) development from previous season? Are the trailing teams able to catch up during the off season? To me this feels a little like the budget issue...

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Hoax
Car development

What kind of car does the team start with in the beginning of a new season? Does the design team start fresh or do they carry over some (all?) development from previous season? Are the trailing teams able to catch up during the off season? To me this feels a little like the budget issue...

The philosophy is that you average out the differences in the ratings. For example:

* Your season 2 aero guy has a rating of 100;
* In bidding for season 3, you pick up a guy that has a rating of 110;
* Your starting point for aero as at S3 is therefore 105.

So you do get some of the benefit of your previous development - that is either added to or subtracted by the quality of your new employee. Of course, if you exercised a FRR you would keep the 100 rating.

BTW, this is how firing-and-hiring or OMB works.

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Makarias
smithy, my thought is that the budget balance of the previous year is totally irrelevant for the next one, unless it's a negative one of course. If we go by a ten race season, the base budget for everyone would be 20 mil, and the way I've suggested it Pink Blaze would start the coming season with 26.1 millions. Of course you wouldn't have the chance to spend prize money from the season finale, but otoh it will give you a 900k budget boost for the next season, which I think is a substantial perk. If that sounds unfair to others, perhaps points scored at the final couple of races in the previous season could be weighted, to have double or triple value? That could make sense, as end-of-season results tell something about the team chief's management skills unlike early season results, where the emphasis is on successful bidding.

OK, got it.... we should think about more about the weighting of late season races. In Maxies example, $900K is not even two development options so ..... ?? *shrug*

Quote

Originally posted by Makarias
Speaking of bidding btw, I'd also suggest that the initial bidding for the season shouldn't be closed until sufficiently many teams have submitted their bidding sheets. If there are too few teams in the bidding, there isn't enough competition for drivers etc, and it becomes too easy for the bidding teams to make super bargains. At the very least ten bidding sheets should be in it, if not more.

I agree that 10 players as a minimum is required for a season. At the moment there are 13 players with their hands up (only Tiger Joy and Pink Blaze have not signed up but we have picked up AcuraF1) so I don't think numbers would be a problem at this stage.

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by Hoax
B. At the beginning of a new season no money are carried over but the teams are given bonuses according to constructors standings alternative points scored in the last season.

That is like saying from the 2004 F1 season, when all ferrari's prize money was added together, if it was more than 22mil, then they just give it away. So if you were in PBAGs place(and this was the real world), would you just give away the 30mil you had extra?

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by Hoax
Any formula just taking left over money from previous season and carry it over to next season will cause problem and I am a bit worried that we may get "sleeper" teams spending nothing just trying to accumulate money for next season. The point to focus on is to only be able to carry over money earned in the last season, not any money just saved.

This can be countered by the commission without much extra work, if we go with the idea we update our own budgets and have smithy just check them over, if a team is consistantly asking for no development when they have plenty to last the season they could be asked for a reason why they arn't developing the car. If no response, or one that is unsuitable is given, then they could be penalised by something we decide on later.

[Rob Silver Speed]

New issue, has anyone thought of inviting BR to join as a team owner?

[A Wheel Nut]

Its great that we have all these ideas, but from what I can see we're actually creating more work rather than reducing it.

Perhaps one thing we're overlooking here is the amount of prize money? If a team wins a race they immediately have enough funds for two full development cycles, if they finish 1-2 they can have full development for three rounds, without even touching their existing funds.

So instead, why not consider this prize money?
1st - $1.5m
2nd - $1.4m
3rd - $1.0
4th - $700k
5th - $500k
6th - $400k

That way a team who finishes 1-2 can only earn a maximum of $2.9m.

Unfortunately this cannot be implemented now with funds already won (unless those concerned are willing to start fresh ) so I can only suggest we cap any season 2 earnings at $30m for the start of season 3. My only concern there is that any team starts with $30m may only have to spend $10m on staff and will just about have enough in the bank to secure full development for the entire season.

Which is why I believe we need a longer season, of at least 16 races.

[Rob Silver Speed]

No cap, you will NOT get PBAG to agree(and yes i know they havn't submitted an intention to join, she's out of town atm )

I suppose lowering the prizes for the next season onwards is a good idea, but with my team having scored so well this season, it'll seem like we're benefitting less from having a well put together team.

A 16 race season, however fun that may be would, if you have a race every 3 weeks, take well over a year to complete which is just too long for a fictional game to run, sorry.

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed
No cap, you will NOT get PBAG to agree(and yes i know they havn't submitted an intention to join, she's out of town atm )

I suppose lowering the prizes for the next season onwards is a good idea, but with my team having scored so well this season, it'll seem like we're benefitting less from having a well put together team.

A 16 race season, however fun that may be would, if you have a race every 3 weeks, take well over a year to complete which is just too long for a fictional game to run, sorry.

3x16=48....;)

Its clear that the rules are flawed at the moment. Thats no one's fault, no one could forsee one team dominating etc. And the biggest hurdle is the amount of additional money some teams have over others.

I think everyone needs to benefit less with regards to money won. Otherwise we're going to continue facing the same problem each season.

It is a no win situation. I don't think its fair that teams start a season with a bucket load of extra money because immediately they're at a huge advantage whereas half my budget will have gone on staff. On the flip side those teams feel as though they earnt it. I'd be happy to compromise, and put in a place a cap system for season 3, if prize money was reduced at the same time.

Thats my compromise. $30m maximum funds to start a season, and heavily reduced prize money from here on in. If anyone can suggest anything better, I'll be all for it.

Otherwise it will get to the stage where teams will have 2 or 3 seasons worth of development budget and be able to keep all the same staff as well.

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
3x16=48....;)

Plus the holiday breaks ;)

Quote

It is a no win situation. I don't think its fair that teams start a season with a bucket load of extra money because immediately they're at a huge advantage whereas half my budget will have gone on staff. On the flip side those teams feel as though they earnt it. I'd be happy to compromise, and put in a place a cap system for season 3, if prize money was reduced at the same time.

Thats my compromise. $30m maximum funds to start a season, and heavily reduced prize money from here on in. If anyone can suggest anything better, I'll be all for it.

"Your compromise" being making other teams make sacrifices to benefit your own situation. A much better solution is to say you can start with as much money as you have accumulated, but give good rewards for investing the money to mean you start with $30mil in liquid assets.

[Hoax]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed
No cap, you will NOT get PBAG to agree(and yes i know they havn't submitted an intention to join, she's out of town atm )

I suppose lowering the prizes for the next season onwards is a good idea, but with my team having scored so well this season, it'll seem like we're benefitting less from having a well put together team.

A 16 race season, however fun that may be would, if you have a race every 3 weeks, take well over a year to complete which is just too long for a fictional game to run, sorry.

I have another idea... Instead of beginning next season with $2M a race each team starts with $10M a race and we also increase development cost and salaries five times. Everyone can then bring over all of their surplus from last season and we all will have happy faces...

[Rob Silver Speed]

If and it's a big IF we move to more than 10 races, PBAG's surplus is going to make little difference as it is being spread out over more races e.g. winton starts with 2mil per race, pbag 5mil much better odds imo

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed

"Your compromise" being making other teams make sacrifices to benefit your own situation.

Der.

I'm not exactly looking out for the best interests of anyone else!;)

[Rob Silver Speed]

Fine, say we go with your compromise, what compensation do those teams it affects get because they are disadvantaged by a rule change?

[Nikos Spagnol]

Hmm... Why is Rob so concerned about Pink Blaze finances?

Over the budget issue: I think we are "already" compromising towards well successful teams - plus the teams who did well in the closing rounds of the season and had no opportunity to use that money - putting a cap of 30 mil. If we stick to the rules, the way they are written, everyone will start with 20 million bucks, except if some team had accumulated more than that - which is unlikely, as a successful team theoretically did so because it SPEND a lot of money in staff and development.

Starting the season with 30 mil., while most people only gets their 20 mil. or so, is still a huge advantage, as a higher budget means a initial performance advantage, if the team boss is lucky and skilled enough. The goal of the game is to be balanced, so that everyone has basically the same opportunities.

So, I think we should just accept the budget cap of 30 mil., and discuss some other stuff - like helping poor old Smithy.

As for season lenght, I think 10 races is a good number. With 16 we are in risk of some team, or driver, grabs the championship with several races to go. We have enough of it in (now defunct) Formula One already!

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed
Fine, say we go with your compromise, what compensation do those teams it affects get because they are disadvantaged by a rule change?

Well you could easily argue that the teams who don't have excess money were disadvantage by the rules.

[smithy]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed
New issue, has anyone thought of inviting BR to join as a team owner?

Love to have him on board. I did send him a PM asking him to write the preview for Belgium but got no reply.

Does he talk to any of you all?

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by smithy
Love to have him on board. I did send him a PM asking him to write the preview for Belgium but got no reply.

Does he talk to any of you all?

I have him on my msn list but we never really talk

[Rob Silver Speed]

Quote

Originally posted by Nikos Spagnol
Hmm... Why is Rob so concerned about Pink Blaze finances?

Zoe is a friend of mine, if BR were stilk around the FAWC he could back this up as she's on his msn list and i believe they talk quite often.

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed


Zoe is a friend of mine, if BR were stilk around the FAWC he could back this up as she's on his msn list and i believe they talk quite often.

K, we believe you.

But we still require signatures in triplicate from 3 independant witnesses.

;)

[Rob Silver Speed]

Piss off The pink team will return to kick our asses(even mine i'd think )

[maxie]

Rob, what does the *pah* in your signature mean?

[Rob Silver Speed]

Means i wanted "FAWC Season 2 Constructors Champion" however i was unable to achieve i this season, however next season i'm sure i will capture it

[Rob Silver Speed]

Chassis Sharing/Buying take your pick of wording

As well as helping the lower teams, it would also help with the initial data input into the game as the commish wouldn't have to work out the average figure between the team's new and old heads of aero, just copy over the value from the team selling the chassis.

As for the "Does the manufacturer get points?" arguement, i'd say no, because the chassis has been sold and being developed by the smaller of the two teams. I think the cost of buying the chassis is reward enough.

[A Wheel Nut]

I'm sure you've figured it out by now, but Winton has the best chassis, period. Our in house engine is a peice of undeveloped ****.

So shall we start bidding for a Winton chassis at say, oh I dunno, $30m?

[Rob Silver Speed]

You would have the best, if you were to buy my last years one ;) lets say $2.5ml

[GhostR]

Hey Rob, with all your concern for PBAG and being fair to them you've forgotten one thing:

The rules, as currently written mean that PBAG lose everything for next season and that we all, regardless of finishing funds (except those who overspent), start with the same funds.

Hence the comments about allowing a $30 mill max being a compromise.

I think we need to hear Zoe's comments directly. However, if I was in PBAG's shoes I would fully support the limit. Why? Because winning purely because I have done well in one season and can therefore be a bully during season 3 bidding and pour money into development is not my idea of fun. Fun comes from having a challenge. Having twice as much money to spend compared to anyone else is not a challenge.

I'll also echo the comments made about the current prize money being oo much. Anyone who does well ends up with more money than they can possibly spend. I think the prize money available should be reduced to a level that means a 1-2 finish supplies enough funds to pay for a single race development plus a slight surplus. That should hopeully help avoid a similar situation to the PBAG one in the future.

[A Wheel Nut]

Quote

Originally posted by GhostR
I'll also echo the comments made about the current prize money being oo much. Anyone who does well ends up with more money than they can possibly spend. I think the prize money available should be reduced to a level that means a 1-2 finish supplies enough funds to pay for a single race development plus a slight surplus. That should hopeully help avoid a similar situation to the PBAG one in the future.

You know, we could just form a breakaway series. ;)

[TDC Racing]

Im a fan of all starting on the same level, after all. this is not real life But forget that, by starting all on the same level, back to back championships are a lot more impressive. The winners from the previous seasons have bragging rights over the rest of us. If we were playing poker, we dont give extra cards to the person who won the previous round.

I think everyone starts fresh on the same level (already they will have FRR, chasis and possible engine development over us), may the best manager win. Otherwise back markers will always be that and that doesnt help anyone to stay motivated in the game