Should inactivity bring some penalty?

Great point. Ranking should be more like the cycling and tennis ranking.

+1

I agree with Edwin that this is a point that needs raising & I also agree with most of the arguments for and against on here.
 
My view is that it is a ‘Hall of Fame’ & as such should probably include inactive teams, however maybe Reputation/Driver atrophy for inactive teams would be a way of solving the issues which have been raised. If I am active i have the potential to lose Rep as well as gain it, depending on how I perform so it shouldn't be that inactive teams are essentially 'frozen in time'.
 
Say a team gets to 10000 Rep & then leaves, they would lose 50 Rep (arbitrary figure) per week after a certain period of inactivity. Active teams would be able to leapfrog inactive teams relatively easily whilst the inactive teams would remain high up in the Hall of Fame but steadily dropping down the rankings, if they choose to join after a year they would only have lost 2500 Rep Points & so wouldn't be massively out of contention (still well within the top 100)
 
The period of inactivity before this kicks in would need to be defined & I think a ‘Holiday Mode’ for periods up to 3 months would probably be a good idea.
 
I’m nowhere near the top so just my 2c!

Ok.. I've just had another idea..

When the new system comes out. A new HoF is created ?

We keep the other one re-name it and delete everyone from rank 1001 +


Edit. Added this.

I would imagin that the inactive accounts that are just sat there clogging up the system are frustrating.
Is there a way that the devs could delete all of the inactives that are over a certain rank but make a backup of the account and put it somewhere out of the main system? If someone wants to come back, they could contact the admin to re-active it.
Keep the e-mails in one part of the system to stop people making another account once the old one is deleted..

I dont see why people should lose HOF points. They built them up, just because they dont play anymore they should not lose them.

I think the only reason why they should Lewis is that there is a cap on the amount of Rep Points you can accrue (10000).

If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be a problem, as after a time inactive teams would be overtaken by active players accruing more points. As it stands currently you can get to 10000 & then effectively sit at the top never to be dethroned.

Yes it's a Hall of Fame, and I agree that the teams have earned the right to be there, but the fact there there is only a finite number of points you can achieve is where the problem lies, take off the cap & the problem effectively goes away.

That is exactly what I was referring to, just explained better

I highly doubt anyone is going to get 10000, and if they do and they quit playing because they get 10000 well that's just ridiculous on their part. Delete their account if thats the case - Install the "after so long inactive the account is deleted" and they'll lose their #1 any way.

Mario Andretti was placed in the F1 Hall of Fame in 1978 but you don't see him actively racing anymore...

Someone who grew tired of iGP is like someone who grew too old for Formula 1...they moved on but their legacy should still remain, am I not right?

That's exactly my point aswell.

All valid points but the fact remains that in real life a driver isn't told "OK, so you've won 100 Races now, you're at the top of the HoF & we're going to stop counting.

Yes Mario Andretti is still in the HoF, but it is still possible for a driver to overtake him if he gets more wins/points. Lewis Hamilton isn't told that whatever he does, he'll never be able to overtake Andretti because he hit some imaginary cap that meant he can't be beaten. (It'll be because he's in a Mercedes!)

Also, (apologies if this comes off as rude) it's a bit short-sighted to dismiss the possibility of a manager getting to 10000 Rep, I hope the developers have more faith in the longevity of the game. All I've suggested is that the cap be removed so that whatever happens, if a manager performs well enough for long enough, he can overtake the team in 1st. 

To argue against removing the cap but then to say "Delete their account if they get to 10000 & then quit" is a bit silly in my opinion, it just adds a level of complexity to the solution which is unnecessary, I don't honestly care if a manager gets to 1M Rep & then quits for good, they can sit at the top of the HoF for as long as it takes for someone to beat them - But it has to be possible for someone to beat them.

I never argued against removing the cap.

I didn't even know that was possible (I thought an ELO system had to have a maximum?)

If you can remove the cap, that's a brilliant idea.

But my point still stands - If accounts are inactive for long enough (say 1 year) then they should be deleted. It's how another game I play does it and that system works fine. I'm not saying delete their account straight away if they reach 10k and then stop playing :P

It's probably a good system to get rid of inactive accounts any way.

No idea if it's possible either mate! ;)

No point comparing this game to real life. I don't recall seeing drivers pit on top of their teammate in real life.

Agreed, not sure it was me who brought up the issue of reality though... :)

ELO system.....

I didn't know Jeff Lynne had done this too

Very much agree with the sentiment that something should be done about inactive players. makes league managment quite tricky at present in trying to keep it constantly competitive and active.

There should be a section saying "Active Managers" Therefore no body loses their psoition and justice gets served who agrees?