| Autor |
Tópico: PHA or something else? |
288 respostas
|
|
|
How many managers complaining about PHA matching know how exactly driver net time speed, driver race speed, driver energy consumption, sponsor offers are calculated?
As Roland said before, PHA matching system adds importance to planning and decreases importance of DE which is good i guess.
Jukka has explained way too much in my opinion. Maybe some official 'tweaks' need to be made, but admins are not responsible for some managers not being able to understand 'hidden PHA'. As Max said, solving the equation is another thing, but is it really needed?
Unsolvable equations simulate randomness of real life decisions to GPRO managerial decisions and this makes the promotion of better managers less random.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rimantas Sagatas @ December 30th 2018,14:56:57 ) Maybe I am missing something, but how can people find out an invisible car characteristic which depends on part wear and how it adds to visable car PHA if we are not provided any usable data related to that? Change of lap time is clearly not enough.
I don't know all the adjustments Jukka is talking about, but considering just part wear it's not invisible. We can see all the part wear figures, as well as the CCP and the track character, every time we do a practice lap, and there are various things we can do to change those things between laps. Studying those for a season or so (or reading this thread) and the broad themes become obvious. Those themes should be relatively easy to communicate to a new player or teammate, so as with any other part of the game it's not like everyone has to go through these various 'Ahaa' moments by themselves. Of course very few will build accurate models, but many will use them.
I suspect you're imagining a more complicated hidden calculation than it really is. I don't think we're dealing with a vast hidden array of part interaction constants, just a simple function that produces 'effective PHA'. The same way that we have a hidden 'effective tyre durability' that differs from the one we see on the tyre supplier screen but is built up of visible driver stats and so on. (Or possibly I'm imagining it's simpler than it really is).
|
|
|
|
I like this change, as it gives more variety to the game.
|
|
|
|
Surely not interesting, but ....
I play the game because of FOBY.
Galileo Galileli: "Hat can be measured, measure what is not measurable, make it measurable!"
I like PHA. I want to measure.
I want to know everything! (Я хочу все знать! <--- Soviet cinema series.) I want to know how measurable it is because it's not wrong.
What is randomized. I accept it.
The benefit is to increase my knowledge.
I do not want to deal with unnecessary issues.
Tibor FOBY Szuromi.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Dimitroglou @ December 30th 2018,16:48:00 )
<!-- gpro_300x250 -->
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
How many managers complaining about PHA matching know how exactly driver net time speed, driver race speed, driver energy consumption, sponsor offers are calculated?
As Roland said before, PHA matching system adds importance to planning and decreases importance of DE which is good i guess.
Jukka has explained way too much in my opinion. Maybe some official 'tweaks' need to be made, but admins are not responsible for some managers not being able to understand 'hidden PHA'. As Max said, solving the equation is another thing, but is it really needed?
Unsolvable equations simulate randomness of real life decisions to GPRO managerial decisions and this makes the promotion of better managers less random.
In my opinion they really are responsible for that, cos they changing something and not giving anything else just the sentence. From this season PHA are more important than before. And as I said imo it's beneficial just for very few people that spending hours studying data.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ December 30th 2018,20:06:26 ) In my opinion they really are responsible for that, cos they changing something and not giving anything else just the sentence. From this season PHA are more important than before. And as I said imo it's beneficial just for very few people that spending hours studying data. Impact assessment?
No wear is what they said. I know for sure today.
(The fog is not good.)
I support the game because it's great.
The wrong decisions are not discouraged.
Go GPRO!!!!
|
|
|
|
I can't tell anymore if this is a f1 online game or a meeting of mathematicians :)
Not going to complain about the PHA situation because I don't think I have the right to. I just feel bad about the game getting more complex and me not being able to handle it, my studies, job, hobbies or whatever aren't related to formulas and mathematics. I wish the game was more intuitive sometimes but that's just the opinion of a humble and random guy :)
|
|
|
|
|
How does it feel to be the definition of laughable ;)
|
|
|
|
|
You know there's been a controversial update when you can't count the amount of cups in the thread on your hands and feet :P
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Roland Postle @ December 30th 2018,16:54:44 ) and there are various things we can do to change those things between laps
True, but getting clear data in real life is tricky. Take the example that you want to study wear, so you downgrade a part between practice laps. But not only did the wear change so did the CCP. Now you have two unknowns. But that's not real life, reality is you will change 3-6 parts, all of which impact wear and CCP. So now you have 12 unknowns. It's that kinda thing that makes it hard for players to fathom the game...
Anyway, I find this debate laughable. Whenever I've suggested anything that makes the game easier I get keyboard warriors telling me I'm trying to cut corners in finding out the games secrets. Now we find something that others can't figure out and suddenly you all want it to be changed :P
|
|
|
|
|
#131 Postado 31 Dec 2018, 09:04:01 (editado pela última vêz 31 Dec 2018, 09:07:29 por Maxim Kotov)
|
Citar
|
Look, if I were in Pro or Amateur, I would not mind game tweaks and changes even every season or even during the season. Because that would make no difference to my results - I would achieve my goals anyway. But in Master and especially in Elite the tensity of competition is so high, that every bad (non-optimal) car update penalizes you by several places on the grid, several millions of money and losing sponsor negotiations and driver’s motivation.
When you arrive to Elite you need to work like a robot - do the best possible steps every time everywhere. One misstep - you’re down. Two missteps - you’re out.
That’s why the main things Elite guys need are clarity of changes and stability of game engine.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Maxim Kotov @ December 31st 2018,09:04:01 ) That’s why the main things Elite guys need are clarity of changes and stability of game engine.
Just like in real life F1/motorsport
|
|
|
|
|
Maxim, the change was announced and didn't ruin any longterm plans (opposite to driver EXP tweak a long time ago, and recent DE introduction). And we all had to adapt and foby the details. I get you point about stability of the engine, but not in this situation.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Tomek Kiełpiński @ December 31st 2018,09:21:09 ) Maxim, the change was announced and didn't ruin any longterm plans (opposite to driver EXP tweak a long time ago, and recent DE introduction). And we all had to adapt and foby the details. I get you point about stability of the engine, but not in this situation.
Tomek, I'm sorry, but there's a little misunderstanding from you side. I'm actually pretty happy about the current change in PHA matching scheme. What I'm unhappy about is a not quite thorough testing of it before implementation, and also I'm not quite happy about uncertainty of the time of possible future tweak (or complete disabling) of this new-and-improved PHA matching feature.
For example, personally I would be really happy if Jukka told us, that either:
1) nothing will be changed about it, we should live with it from now on, or
2) during this season he would try to do additional thorough testing of this feature and before next season the PHA matching would be fixed to make it more logical (maybe diminishing effect from parts wear comparing to parts level?).
|
|
|
|
|
Seems so, Maxim. I complety agree with you :-D
|
|
|
|
|
Maxim is right about one thing. It is senseless really to introduce something, which people then start to attempt to extrapolate its workings....then a tweak is made and any gained knowledge/advantage becomes utterly procrastinating to the purpose of discovery.
From what I read, I think Jukka was quite patient with some people here in attempt to explain things - though probably in a level of detail that perhaps was not needed. However, I think it also has not helped that we can see some misgivings/uncertainty about the changes in Jukka's posts yesterday which probably added to the confusion and outpouring of both confusion and misunderstanding. I think most of the replies are of a more concerning nature than anything personal against anybody.
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 28th 2018,16:17:41 ) It is of course debatable whether the PHA matching thing should be applied directly to the PHA shown Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 28th 2018,16:17:41 ) or to the PHA used after different treatments in the race engine Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 28th 2018,16:17:41 ) Maybe the first one would have been better.
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 30th 2018,11:12:04 ) A bit of background for the implementation from my side. I had thought something like this a long time ago when I wasn't even an admin. Back then, I would have based it on the shown PHA Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 28th 2018,16:17:41 ) So maybe it gets adjusted somehow at some point, maybe not. Nevertheless, more is not always more in PHA.
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 30th 2018,15:06:49 ) Wear effect won't be put to shown PHA. Either the PHA speed effect would need much complication, or the PHA speed effect would become laughably easy to solve. With or without matching change.
Quote ( Jukka Sireni @ December 30th 2018,11:12:04 ) So even though I was aware that PHA to be used had wear and other adjustments, I didn't think much about their effect. So the result is that you can get a rather big accidental/intentional benefit/loss from it. I won't promise anything, but it might get some adjustments. Nevertheless, more is not always more with all other things equal.
I think people just want a clear message and basis to go forward with really. This all seems quite vague as to whether it stays as is / changes or what? If some things about the effects were not considered and more thorough testing is required, I think Maxim is right that the sensible thing to do is revert and then continue with the new system when admins are 100% happy with it.
Reading the thread, I think there's a degree of uncertainty. Quite a high degree actually. If we can just get confirmation one way or the other than I think everyone can just crack on from there and we just have to live with it. I don't think it was correct to implement though if a future change is going to be needed that will impact on any research that has been or will be conducted based on the existing formulae/understanding of how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clean water into the glass!
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ December 27th 2018,20:17:36 ) Hi, today I've done my trainig laps just to see the time compare to others from my team and group. In my opinion I have not bad PHA for this track so I've decided just to put same lvl new engine on. My PHA stayed the same but for some reason I lost 0,180s on my next training lap. Of course same tyres and setup corrected for new engine. Did anyone had similar situation? For me this is very strange.
(P) (H) (A)
105 109 108
It is being a nice debate about the new PHA feature.
I would like to thank you all for learning from experienced people.
But this topic starts with a simple question: why a same lvl new engine is not as fast as (or faster than) a used engine (all others parts remains same lvl and usage).
Even if the PHA (car) is not the best for the PHA (track), it is the "same" PHA (car), with new or used engine.
My guess is: the setup correction for new engine was not as precise as possible.
Imo, considering best setup in both cases, a new engine should be faster than a used engine (all other parts and usage not changed) in a game (not real F1).
Any other opinion about this specific question?
Maybe I missed this specific answer in so many postings...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#140 Postado 31 Dec 2018, 15:46:11 (editado pela última vêz 31 Dec 2018, 15:48:13 por Maxim Kotov)
|
Citar
|
Quote ( Asdrúbal Corral @ December 31st 2018,15:31:02 ) Any other opinion about this specific question?
Maybe I missed this specific answer in so many postings...
You've missed the answer: buying new engine lead to a negative effect of a car's hidden PHA (visible PHA, modified by other factors, such as parts wear and maybe something else) matching track's PHA becoming worse (even though visible PHA stayed the same). And this negative effect was bigger than positive effect from buying a new engine itself (removing 96% wear). In simple words, removing 96% of engine wear biased the car to the wrong direction regarding PHA compatibility so much, that it overweighted the advantage, gained from buying new engine inself :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Maxim Kotov @ December 31st 2018,15:46:11 ) You've missed the answer:
Thanks, Maxim.
I would prefer something less complex to explain that... :-)
Definitely, it does not make sense for me.
Only a wrong setup could be slower with new engine (same lvl), imo.
Anyway, let's see how new feature will run.
BR
|
|
|
|
|
You see! Don't you see? Well, you see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good afternoon, greetings to all. A question that the necessary level of PHA should have to achieve permanence in PRO? Thank you...
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Deivi Bolivar @ December 31st 2018,16:30:38 ) Good afternoon, greetings to all. A question that the necessary level of PHA should have to achieve permanence in PRO? Thank you...
Deivi, you can make a conclusion about this by looking at car levels of successful managers in Pro in other groups. And PHA level is connected to car level.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Maxim Kotov @ December 31st 2018,18:38:44 ) Deivi, you can make a conclusion about this by looking at car levels of successful managers in Pro in other groups. And PHA level is connected to car level.
It is not a clear answer, but thank you very much ...
There are managers for example with a car level 8 and win races in PRO, but they arrive at MASTER with the same car and the same level and do not have successes, and you can see managers with level 8 cars in MASTER winning races in their category. Entinces would not know what this should be. Regards...
For a better example reviewing ELITE, I can observe your case in relation to Alpo Kaakinen, both have a level 9 car but you do not have points and Alpo has 26 points ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Deivi Bolivar @ December 31st 2018,18:51:01 ) There are managers for example with a car level 8 and win races in PRO, but they arrive at MASTER with the same car and the same level and do not have successes, and you can see managers with level 8 cars in MASTER winning races in their category. Entinces would not know what this should be. Regards...
For a better example reviewing ELITE, I can observe your case in relation to Alpo Kaakinen, both have a level 9 car but you do not have points and Alpo has 26 points ...
I think you're answering yourself in here :)
You see, the car level isn't enough just by itself to get you the permanence you seek in Pro or any other division. There are other sides of your package that need to be at a good enough level :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Ahmet Sonverdi @ December 31st 2018,19:34:06 ) I think you're answering yourself in here :)
You see, the car level isn't enough just by itself to get you the permanence you seek in Pro or any other division. There are other sides of your package that need to be at a good enough level :) Precisely those "sides" are the ones I want to know, but thanks ...
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Asdrúbal Corral @ December 31st 2018,15:59:24 ) Quote ( Maxim Kotov @ December 31st 2018,15:46:11 )
You've missed the answer:
Thanks, Maxim.
I would prefer something less complex to explain that... :-)
Definitely, it does not make sense for me.
Only a wrong setup could be slower with new engine (same lvl), imo.
Anyway, let's see how new feature will run.
BR
I know that's looks very strange but for sure set-up was correct. Loss in net time was made by worsening the balance of the car because of new engine. Conclusion is that PHA we see in many cases is far from the real car balance when you take wear into account.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Marcin Skrzypiec @ December 31st 2018,20:10:11 ) I know that's looks very strange but for sure set-up was correct. Loss in net time was made by worsening the balance of the car because of new engine. Conclusion is that PHA we see in many cases is far from the real car balance when you take wear into account.
Thanks for sharing your conclusion.
It is difficult to accept new engine slower than used engine, but since PHA balance is more important now... ok.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
