| Author |
Topic: Time to decrease importance of luck? |
57 replies
|
|
|
|
#1 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:15:24
|
Quote
|
I know this has been talked all over again tons of times, but after todays qualifying I understood that this is actually getting ridiculous. In last few seasons probably everyone has noticed how much the overall game knowledge around the GPRO improved and how closer it got in higher groups, soon, at qualifies, whole 40 managers will be able to get within 'luck' gap from P1, which is complete none-sense IMHO.
5-10 seasons ago, when there were gaps of .3-.5s gaps between each manager, the luck factor in qualifying wasn't that important, even if you get +0.3s on your raw pace in your lap, or -1s, you'll lose/win only few positions, which can be gained back in race. But now, when, let's take M2 for example, in qualifying session 1, difference between P1 and P35 on the grid, is 1.672s, it means that even if you're the fastest guy around normally, you can start at the very end of the grid because system wasn't in the mood when you pushed the button, is that the way this should be ran?
My simple suggestion is that the luck factor should be reduced and the risks in qualifying would be somewhat changed, making the possible lose/gain in qualifying 2x or something similar, smaller would make this so much more interesting and make game dependant on the managers more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:17:35
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:18:10
|
Quote
|
|
+1, totally agree. Pro and up are particularly tight in qualy now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:19:55
|
Quote
|
I think this is where the "thumbs up/down" feature really helps!
Totally agree with Lukas...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:21:02
|
Quote
|
Well... Imho quals ARE about luck.
It's not easy to shoot perfect lap at this single one. :)
Look how tight is Q3 in real F1 ;-)
And it's not a 'luck'. It's just 'equalized' level :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:24:49
|
Quote
|
|
Agree, even I feel a bit bad for starting where I'm starting after simply a very lucky Q that could have easily put me last :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:26:45
|
Quote
|
I haven't seen times in F1 to wary by 1.5-2s per each lap from every driver, have you? Yes, on bad lap they might lose .3s and improve on 2nd try, not counting the try's they spin or something, that's different case.
And don't forget that difference from P1 to P10 in F1 qualifying is around 1.5s, and here 30 managers fits in 1 second. Which makes every tenth few times more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:26:46
|
Quote
|
|
If there was actualy any risk involved in pushing to the limit, some people would most likely consider not pushing at all...
|
|
|
|
There are tons of options how to improve it, simply leave 2 options of risk f.e. One to drive safely and not risk too much (which would not improve/worsen your actual pace much), other to push his limits (which would have a chance to improve/worsen your time, how often it works would be based on skills of driver, obviously the improve/worse gap should be way lower).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Apr 26th 2011, 20:50:16
|
Quote
|
if you reduce the "mistake time"
why would you need risks in qual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:04:02
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Lukas Jonaitis @ April 26th 2011,20:29:50 )
There are tons of options how to improve it, simply leave 2 options of risk f.e. One to drive safely and not risk too much (which would not improve/worsen your actual pace much), other to push his limits (which would have a chance to improve/worsen your time, how often it works would be based on skills of driver, obviously the improve/worse gap should be way lower).
Isn't this how it is now? except with a scale of 4 alternatives instead of "A or B"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:04:47
|
Quote
|
|
As much as I agree, what better options are there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:17:46
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ April 26th 2011,21:04:47 )
As much as I agree, what better options are there?
Make the variance between good and bad qualifying laps at most +/-0.150 s (on standard track)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:22:22
|
Quote
|
I don't think that's a very realistic change personally Chinmay. Even the best drivers struggle to hit their strongest laps each time.
The two options I've come up with is instead of a fastest single lap, do 3 Q1 and Q2 laps and take the best of each. The other is to furhter amplify the factors that affect speed of qualifying. Increase the effect of car wear, balance and level for instance, but only in Qualifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:22:48
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ April 26th 2011,21:17:46 )
Make the variance between good and bad qualifying laps at most +/-0.150 s (on standard track)
Agree with that, its almost lottery like and Ive been known to lose almost 0.5 sec by pushing a little, that cant be right :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:26:15
|
Quote
|
|
Straight after I say that, i get a random, sweet. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:29:09
|
Quote
|
|
And a warning for double posting, ooh, there's a triple, bite me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:30:17
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Keri Lovell @ April 26th 2011,21:29:09 )
And a warning for double posting, ooh, there's a triple, bite me.
I try to save you :)
Quote ( Keri Lovell @ April 26th 2011,21:22:48 )
Agree with that, its almost lottery like and Ive been known to lose almost 0.5 sec by pushing a little, that cant be right :-(
I agree what that
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:30:21
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:32:41
|
Quote
|
|
Whats the problem anyway? No-one died, its a ridiculous rule, as long as you dont post stupid amounts in a row, whats the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:33:49 (last edited Apr 26th 2011, 22:37:38 by Hans Barf)
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Keri Lovell @ April 26th 2011,21:32:41 )
No-one died
my brains did
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:33:56
|
Quote
|
|
yeah i hve no idea why it is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:34:02
|
Quote
|
|
And Erkki got a spanking by ricochet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:34:13
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Keri Lovell @ April 26th 2011,21:32:41 )
Whats the problem anyway? No-one died, its a ridiculous rule, as long as you dont post stupid amounts in a row, whats the problem?
Double shouldn't be a problem but triple or more, is bad.
Btw at air attack lfs forum some guy did 7 posts in a row. After we complained, he's been topping 15 edits per post :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 posted Apr 26th 2011, 21:36:06
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ April 26th 2011,21:22:22 )
I don't think that's a very realistic change personally Chinmay. Even the best drivers struggle to hit their strongest laps each time.
Well then make a possibility of 'driver error'? Which would be a small chance that driver completely ruins the lap (1-5s mistake) if using high risks, tho it should be really low. Rather get one of those per season than 17 of bad qualifying sessions in current format.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ April 26th 2011,21:22:22 )
The two options I've come up with is instead of a fastest single lap, do 3 Q1 and Q2 laps and take the best of each. The other is to furhter amplify the factors that affect speed of qualifying. Increase the effect of car wear, balance and level for instance, but only in Qualifying.
Unfeasible. Qualifying speed is already more sensitive to some of those factors than race speed right now. If you make it more then you will have people jumping 10-15 spots or even more, for just buying brand new parts of same level. And seeing how important qualifying is in higher divisions, you don't really want that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 posted Apr 26th 2011, 22:16:22
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Lukas Jonaitis @ April 26th 2011,20:15:24 )
But now, when, let's take M2 for example, in qualifying session 1, difference between P1 and P35 on the grid, is 1.672s, it means that even if you're the fastest guy around normally, you can start at the very end of the grid because system wasn't in the mood when you pushed the button, is that the way this should be ran?
Stupid people will defend this sort of thing in the name of "fun".
This is not any different from the problem of the bad random weather, to me the most obvious random/luck based thing on the game. If people will defend that, then you can be sure stupid -.5s to +.2s variation on qualifying will remain.
Unfortunately.
I of course agree with everything you said though.
|
|
|
|
finally someone else noticed weird quali system too....
Quote ( Lukas Jonaitis @ April 26th 2011,20:15:24 )
My simple suggestion is that the luck factor should be reduced and the risks in qualifying would be somewhat changed, making the possible lose/gain in qualifying 2x or something similar, smaller would make this so much more interesting and make game dependant on the managers more.
remove it. quali time=practice net time. simple
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Apr 26th 2011, 22:20:59
|
Quote
|
I think most people would want things clear cut and no random involved in anything. On this occasions qualifying was picked on.
I personally love all the randomness of things. Keep it as it is and dont ever think of changing it please.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted Apr 26th 2011, 22:23:40
|
Quote
|
|
Ok a lot of factors are random, I agree. And the level of randomness can be discussed. Still, the best managers win races.
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
